Variability and accuracy in mammographic interpretation using the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System

被引:230
作者
Kerlikowske, K
Grady, D
Barclay, J
Frankel, SD
Ominsky, SH
Sickles, EA
Ernster, V
机构
[1] Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Epidemiol & Biostat, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
[2] Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Med, San Francisco, CA USA
[3] Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Vet Affairs, Gen Internal Med Sect, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
[4] Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Radiol, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1093/jnci/90.23.1801
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Background: Several studies, which were limited by their small sample size and selection of difficult cases for review, have reported substantial variability among radiologists in interpretation of mammographic examinations, We have determined, in the largest study to date, intraobserver and interobserver agreement in interpreting screening mammography and accuracy of mammography by use of the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS), Methods: The mammographic examinations were randomly selected on the basis of original mammographic interpretation and cancer outcome from 71713 screening examinations performed by the Mobile Mammography Screening Program of the University of California, San Francisco, during the period from April 1985 through February 1995, The final sample included 786 abnormal examinations with no cancer detected, 267 abnormal examinations with cancer detected, and 1563 normal examinations, Films were read separately by two radiologists according to BI-RADS, Cancer status was determined by contacting women's physicians and by linkage to the regional Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program, Results: There was moderate agreement between radiologists in reporting the presence of a finding when cancer was present (kappa = 0.54) and substantial agreement when cancer was not present (kappa = 0.62), Agreement was moderate in assigning one of the five assessment categories but was statistically significantly lower when cancer was present relative to when cancer was not present (kappa = 0.46 versus 0.56; two-sided P = .02), Agreement for reporting the presence of a finding and mammographic assessment was twofold more likely for examinations with less dense breasts, Agreement was higher on repeat readings by the same radiologists than between radiologists. The sensitivity of mammography was lower with BI-RADS than with the original system for mammographic interpretation, but the positive predictive value of mammography was higher, Conclusion: Considerable variability in interpretation of mammographic examinations exists; this variability and the accuracy of mammography are neither improved nor diminished with use of BI-RADS.
引用
收藏
页码:1801 / 1809
页数:9
相关论文
共 27 条
[21]   MAMMOGRAPHIC SCREENING - HOW TO OPERATE SUCCESSFULLY AT LOW-COST [J].
SICKLES, EA ;
WEBER, WN ;
GALVIN, HB ;
OMINSKY, SH ;
SOLLITTO, RA .
RADIOLOGY, 1986, 160 (01) :95-97
[22]   MEDICAL AUDIT OF A RAPID-THROUGHPUT MAMMOGRAPHY SCREENING PRACTICE - METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS OF 27,114 EXAMINATIONS [J].
SICKLES, EA ;
OMINSKY, SH ;
SOLLITTO, RA ;
GALVIN, HB ;
MONTICCIOLO, DL .
RADIOLOGY, 1990, 175 (02) :323-327
[23]  
SICKLES EA, 1987, RADIOL CLIN N AM, V25, P1015
[24]  
SIEGEL DG, 1992, AM J EPIDEMIOL, V135, P571
[25]  
SIMPSON W, 1995, CLIN RADIOL, V51, P709
[26]  
THURFJELL EJ, 1994, RADIOLOGY, V191, P214
[27]   INTER-OBSERVER VARIABILITY IN THE INTERPRETATION OF MAMMOGRAMS [J].
VINEIS, P ;
SINISTRERO, G ;
TEMPORELLI, A ;
AZZONI, L ;
BIGO, A ;
BURKE, P ;
CICCONE, G ;
FASCIANO, F ;
FERRARIS, R ;
FRIGERIO, A ;
GENOVESE, MG ;
LUPARIA, E ;
POTENZONI, F ;
SEGNAN, N .
TUMORI, 1988, 74 (03) :275-279