Irshad Abid, Leddy Rebecca, Ackerman Susan, Cluver Abbie, Pavic Dag, Abid Ahad, Lewis Madelene C
1 Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, 169 Ashley Ave, Charleston, SC 29425.
2 University of South Carolina School of Medicine, Columbia, SC.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016 Dec;207(6):1366-1371. doi: 10.2214/AJR.16.16561. Epub 2016 Sep 22.
The objective of our study was to determine intra- and interreader agreements for density assessment using the fifth edition of the BI-RADS guidelines and to compare with those for density assessment using the fourth edition of the BI-RADS guidelines.
Five radiologists assessed breast density four times in 104 mammographic examinations: twice using the fourth edition of the BI-RADS guidelines and twice using the fifth edition. The intra- and interreader agreements for density assessment based on each guideline were determined and compared. The density distribution pattern under each of the four BI-RADS density categories using each guideline was also noted and compared.
The intrareader agreement for density assessment using the fifth-edition criteria was lower than that using the fourth-edition criteria (p = 0.0179). The overall intrareader agreement (weighted kappa) using the old criteria was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.80-0.87), and the individual intrareader agreement values in five readers ranged from 0.78 (95% CI, 0.69-0.88) to 0.92 (95% CI, 0.87-0.97). The overall intrareader agreement using the new BI-RADS criteria was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.73-0.81), and the individual intrareader agreement values in five readers ranged from 0.74 (95% CI, 0.64-0.84) to 0.99 (95% CI, 0.98-1.00). The interreader agreement values obtained using the fifth-edition criteria were also lower than those obtained using the fourth-edition criteria (p = 0.006). The overall interreader agreement using the old BI-RADS criteria was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.61-0.69), whereas the overall interreader agreement using the new BI-RADS criteria was 0.57 (95% CI, 0.53-0.61). Overall a higher number of dense assessments were given when the fifth-edition guidelines were used (p < 0.0001).
Compared with the intra- and interreader agreements obtained using the fourth edition of the BI-RADS guidelines, the intra- and interreader agreements were lower using the fifth-edition guidelines. An increased number of dense assessments were given when the fifth-edition guidelines were used.
本研究的目的是确定使用第五版乳腺影像报告和数据系统(BI-RADS)指南进行密度评估时的阅片者内和阅片者间一致性,并与使用第四版BI-RADS指南进行密度评估时的一致性进行比较。
五位放射科医生在104例乳腺钼靶检查中对乳腺密度进行了四次评估:两次使用第四版BI-RADS指南,两次使用第五版。确定并比较基于每个指南的密度评估的阅片者内和阅片者间一致性。还记录并比较了使用每个指南时在四个BI-RADS密度类别下的密度分布模式。
使用第五版标准进行密度评估的阅片者内一致性低于使用第四版标准(p = 0.0179)。使用旧标准的总体阅片者内一致性(加权kappa)为0.84(95%CI,0.80 - 0.87),五位阅片者的个体阅片者内一致性值范围为0.78(95%CI,0.69 - 0.88)至0.92(95%CI,0.87 - 0.97)。使用新的BI-RADS标准的总体阅片者内一致性为0.77(95%CI,0.73 - 0.81),五位阅片者的个体阅片者内一致性值范围为0.74(95%CI,0.64 - 0.84)至0.99(95%CI,0.98 - 1.00)。使用第五版标准获得的阅片者间一致性值也低于使用第四版标准(p = 0.006)。使用旧的BI-RADS标准的总体阅片者间一致性为0.65(95%CI,0.61 - 0.69),而使用新的BI-RADS标准的总体阅片者间一致性为0.57(95%CI,0.53 - 0.61)。总体而言,使用第五版指南时进行的致密评估数量更多(p < 0.0001)。
与使用第四版BI-RADS指南获得的阅片者内和阅片者间一致性相比,使用第五版指南时的阅片者内和阅片者间一致性较低。使用第五版指南时进行的致密评估数量增加。