Browse > Article

Interobserver Variability in the Interpretation of Microcalcifications in Digital Magnification Mammographies  

Jeon, Su-Jin (Department of Radiology, National Health Insurance Corporation Ilsan Hospital)
Kim, Min-Jung (Department of Radiology, Research Institute of Radiological Science, Yonsei University College of Medicine)
Kim, Eun-Kyung (Department of Radiology, Research Institute of Radiological Science, Yonsei University College of Medicine)
Son, Eun-Ju (Department of Radiology, Research Institute of Radiological Science, Yonsei University College of Medicine)
Youk, Ji-Hyun (Department of Radiology, Research Institute of Radiological Science, Yonsei University College of Medicine)
Kwak, Jin-Young (Department of Radiology, Research Institute of Radiological Science, Yonsei University College of Medicine)
Choi, Seon-Hyeong (Department of Radiology, Research Institute of Radiological Science, Yonsei University College of Medicine)
Publication Information
Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology / v.63, no.4, 2010 , pp. 383-389 More about this Journal
Abstract
Purpose: To analyze the interobserver variability of radiologists in their description and final assessment categories of microcalcifications in digital magnification mammographies. Materials and Methods: From 2005 to 2006, five radiologists analyzed 66 lesion microcalcifications in 65 patients on digital magnification mammographies using a blind method and including 40 benign and 26 malignant lesions. Each observer evaluated the microcalfication morphology, distribution, and BIRADS$^{(R)}$ category. Using the kappa value, the degree of interobserver agreement was calculated and the rate of malignancy was assessed. Results: The mean kappa value for microcalcification morphology was 0.19, which was considered to be moderate agreement for the microcalcification distribution (k: 0.54). The overall rate of malignancy was 39% for microcalcification morphology and distribution. Among them, amorphous microcalcifications showed the lowest rate of malignancy (17%). The mean kappa value for the final assessment categories of BI-RADS$^{(R)}$ was 0.29 and the mean rate of malignancy was 39%. Conclusion: Although there was slight interobserver variability, according to each of the descriptors, the general interobserver agreement in interpretation of microcalcification on digital magnification mammogram was slight to moderate. To improve interobserver agreement for the interpretation of microcalcifications, proper image quality control, standardization of criteria, and proper training of radiologists are needed.
Keywords
Observer Variation; Mammography; Calcinosis;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Hermann KP, Obenauer S, Funke M, Grabbe EH. Magnification mammography: a comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for the detection of simulated small masses and microcalcifications. Eur Radiol 2002;12:2188- 2191   DOI
2 Orel SG, Kay N, Reynolds C, Sullivan DC. BI-RADS categorization as a predictor of malignancy. Radiology 1999;211:845-850   DOI
3 Bent CK, Bassett LW, D'Orsi CJ, Sayre JW. The positive predictive value of BI-RADS microcalcification descriptors and final assessment categories. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;194:1378-1383   DOI   ScienceOn
4 Jiang Y, Nishikawa RM, Schmidt RA, Toledano AY, Doi K. Potential of computer-aided diagnosis to reduce variability in radiologists' interpretations of mammograms depicting microcalcifications. Radiology 2001;220:787-794   DOI   ScienceOn
5 Berg WA, D'Orsi CJ, Jackson VP, Bassett LW, Beam CA, Lewis RS, et al. Does training in the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) improve biopsy recommendations or feature analysis agreement with experiencexperienced breast imagers at mammography? Radiology 2002;224:871-880   DOI   ScienceOn
6 Blank RG, Wallis MG, Given-Wilson RM. Observer variability in cancer detection during routine repeat (incident) mammographic screening in a study of two versus one view mammography. J Med Screen 1999;6:152-158   DOI
7 Ciccone G, Vineis P, Frigerio A, Segnan N. Inter-observer and intra- observer variability of mammogram interpretation: a field study. Eur J Cancer 1992;28A:1054-1058
8 Obenauer S, Luftner-Nagel S, von Heyden D, Munzel U, Baum F, Grabbe E. Screen film vs full-field digital mammography: image quality, detectability and characterization of lesions. Eur Radiol 2002;12:1697-1702   DOI   ScienceOn
9 Fischer U, Baum F, Obenauer S, Luftner-Nagel S, von Heyden D, Vosshenrich R, et al. Comparative study in patients with microcalcifications: full-field digital mammography vs screen-film mammography. Eur Radiol 2002;12:2679-2683
10 Fischer U, Hermann KP, Baum F. Digital mammography: current state and future aspects. Eur Radiol 2006;16:38-44   DOI   ScienceOn
11 조소연, 최철순, 김호철, 최문혜, 김은아, 배상훈 등. X선 유방촬영술의 판독에 있어서 판독자간 일치율: 악성종양을 시사하는 소견을 중심으로. 대한방사선의학회지 1996;34:133-137
12 이경재, 이원철, 황인영, 김미혜, 김학희, 박용규 등. 유방촬영술의 판독자간 일치도. 대한영상의학회지 2004;51:351-356
13 Lazarus E, Mainiero MB, Schepps B, Koelliker SL, Livingston LS. BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value. Radiology 2006;239:385-391   DOI   ScienceOn
14 Berg WA, Campassi C, Langenberg P, Sexton MJ. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: inter- and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;174:1769-1777   DOI   ScienceOn
15 Cosar ZS, Cetin M, Tepe TK, Cetin R, Zarali AC. Concordance of mammographic classifications of microcalcifications in breast cancer diagnosis: utility of the breast imaging reporting and data system (fourth edition). Clin Imaging 2005;29:389-395
16 Fleiss JL. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 1981
17 Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159-174   DOI   ScienceOn
18 Feig SA, Galkin BM, Muir HD. Evaluation of breast microcalcifications by means of optically magnified tissue specimen radiographs. Recent Results Cancer Res 1987;105:111-123
19 Sickles EA. Mammographic features of 300 consecutive nonpalpable breast cancers. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1986;146:661-663   DOI   ScienceOn
20 American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system, breast imaging atlas. 4th ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2003
21 Sickles EA, Doi K, Genant HK. Magnification film mammography: image quality and clinical studies. Radiology 1977;125:69-76   DOI
22 Sickles EA. Further experience with microfocal spot magnification mammography in the assessment of clustered breast microcalcifications. Radiology 1980;137:9-14   DOI