HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 2243011626v1 224/3/871    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Berg, W. A. Articles by Crewson, P. E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Berg, W. A. Articles by Crewson, P. E.

Does Training in the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) Improve Biopsy Recommendations or Feature Analysis Agreement with Experienced Breast Imagers at Mammography?¹

¹ From the Dept of Radiology (W.A.B.) and Greenebaum Cancer Ctr (W.A.B.), Univ of Maryland, 419 W Redwood St, Ste 110, Baltimore, MD 21201; Dept of Radiology, Univ of Massachusetts, Worcester, Mass (C.J.D.); Dept of Radiology, Indiana Univ School of Medicine, Indianapolis (V.P.J.); Dept of Radiological Sciences, UCLA School of Medicine, Los Angeles, Calif (L.W.B.); Dept of Radiology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee (C.A.B.); and American College of Radiology, Reston, Va (R.S.L., P.E.C.). From the 2000 RSNA scientific assembly. Received Oct 5, 2001; revision requested Nov 1; revision received Feb 6, 2002; accepted Feb 28. Supported by the Maryland Chapter of the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation and the American College of Radiology Technology Assessment Studies Assistance Program. Address correspondence to W.A.B. (e-mail: waberg@umaryland.edu).

PURPOSE: To determine whether training in the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) improves observer performance and agreement with the consensus of experienced breast imagers with regard to mammographic feature analysis and final assessment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: A test set of mammograms was developed, with 54 proven lesions consisting of 28 masses (nine [32%] malignancies) and 26 microcalcifications (10 [38%] malignancies). Three experienced breast imagers reviewed cases independently and by means of consensus. Twenty-three practicing mammogram-interpreting physicians reviewed mammograms before and after a day’s lectures on BI-RADS. Observer performance before and after training was measured by means of agreement () with consensus description and assessments, rate of biopsy of malignant and benign lesions, and areas under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Performance was also measured for 11 participants 2–3 months after training.

RESULTS: Improved agreement with consensus feature analysis was found for mass margins and/or asymmetries, with a pretraining generalized value of 0.36 and a posttraining generalized value of 0.41. Similar improvement was seen for description of calcification morphology (pretraining value of 0.36 improving to 0.44 after training). No improvement was seen in describing calcification distribution. Final assessments were more consistent after training, with a pretraining value of 0.31, as compared with 0.45 after training. The mean biopsy rate for malignant lesions improved from 73% (range, 53%–89%) before training to 88% (range, 74%–100%) after training, with minimal increase in mean biopsy rate of benign lesions (43% [range, 26%–60%] before to 51% [range, 31%–63%] after training), and no net change in area under the ROC curve, as compared with histopathologic findings. For the subset of participants with delayed follow-up, no significant decline in posttraining results was seen.

CONCLUSION: BI-RADS training resulted in improved agreement with the consensus of experienced breast imagers for feature analysis and final assessment. It is important that trainees showed improved rates of recommending biopsy for malignant lesions. This effect was maintained over 2–3 months.

© RSNA, 2002

Index terms: Breast radiography • Diagnostic radiology, observer performance

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. A. Coursey, C. L. Hollingsworth, A. M. Gaca, C. Maxfield, D. DeLong, and G. Bisset III Radiologists' Agreement When Using a 10-Point Scale to Report Abdominal Radiographic Findings of Necrotizing Enterocolitis in Neonates and Infants Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2008; 191(1): 190 - 197. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E.-K. Kim, K. H. Ko, K. K. Oh, J. Y. Kwak, J. K. You, M. J. Kim, and B.-W. Park Clinical Application of the BI-RADS Final Assessment to Breast Sonography in Conjunction with Mammography Am. J. Roentgenol., May 1, 2008; 190(5): 1209 - 1215. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Suzuki, Y. Nakamoto, T. Terauchi, M. Kawamoto, Y. Okumura, Y. Suzuki, T. Sato, N. Takahashi, J. Lee, M. Senda, et al. Inter-observer Variations in FDG-PET Interpretation for Cancer Screening Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol., August 18, 2007; (2007) hym064v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. Schueller, E. Kaindl, W. K. Matzek, F. Semturs, C. Schueller-Weidekamm, and T. H. Helbich Image Quality of a Wet Laser Printer Versus a Paper Printer for Full-Field Digital Mammograms Am. J. Roentgenol., January 1, 2006; 186(1): 38 - 43. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. E. Crewson Reader Agreement Studies Am. J. Roentgenol., May 1, 2005; 184(5): 1391 - 1397. [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Gur, L. P. Wallace, A. H. Klym, L. A. Hardesty, G. S. Abrams, R. Shah, and J. H. Sumkin Trends in Recall, Biopsy, and Positive Biopsy Rates for Screening Mammography in an Academic Practice Radiology, May 1, 2005; 235(2): 396 - 401. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Saslow, J. Hannan, J. Osuch, M. H. Alciati, C. Baines, M. Barton, J. K. Bobo, C. Coleman, M. Dolan, G. Gaumer, et al. Clinical Breast Examination: Practical Recommendations for Optimizing Performance and Reporting CA Cancer J Clin, November 1, 2004; 54(6): 327 - 344. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]