Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2412051710
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Berg, W. A.
Right arrow Articles by Mendelson, E. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Berg, W. A.
Right arrow Articles by Mendelson, E. B.
(Radiology 2006;241:355-365.)
© RSNA, 2006


Breast Imaging

Operator Dependence of Physician-performed Whole-Breast US: Lesion Detection and Characterization1

Wendie A. Berg, MD, PhD, Jeffrey D. Blume, PhD, Jean B. Cormack, PhD and Ellen B. Mendelson, MD

1 From Breast Imaging Consultant, American Radiology Services, Johns Hopkins Green Spring, 10755 Falls Rd, Suite 440, Lutherville, MD 21093 (W.A.B.); Center for Statistical Sciences, Brown University, Providence, RI (J.D.B., J.B.C.); and Department of Radiology, Northwestern University School of Medicine, Chicago, Ill (E.B.M.). Received October 19, 2005; revision requested December 9; revision received January 20, 2006; final version accepted February 8. Supported by a grant from the Avon Foundation. Address correspondence to W.A.B. (e-mail: wendieberg{at}hotmail.com).

Purpose: To prospectively examine operator dependence of lesion detection, description, and interpretation when experienced breast radiologists perform whole-breast ultrasonography (US).

Materials and Methods: Institutional review board approval was obtained for the HIPAA-compliant study. Ten women (aged 19–53 years; mean, 37.4 years; 20 breasts) with numerous known breast lesions consented to participate. Eleven breast radiologists, who passed experience and qualification requirements for a screening breast US trial and consented to participate, scanned both breasts in all participants and documented images of each detected lesion and its size, location, features, palpability, and Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System final assessment. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to measure agreement on lesion size and location, and {kappa} statistics were calculated for agreement on features and final assessments compared with consensus.

Results: Eighty-eight unique lesions were identified by at least two investigators (five to 13 lesions per participant). Mean diameter was 6.7 mm (standard error, 0.4; range, 2–22 mm), and eight lesions (9%) were palpable. Of 968 potential detections (88 lesions, 11 investigators), 536 (55%) detections were made. Individual investigators detected between 43 (49%) and 58 (66%) lesions. Larger lesions were more consistently detected: Detection rates were six of 33 lesions (18%) at 3 mm or smaller; 164 of 374 (43.9%) at 3.1–5 mm; 145 of 275 (52.7%) at 5.1–7 mm; 119 of 176 (67.6%) at 7.1–9 mm; 38 of 44 (86%) at 9.1–11 mm; and 64 of 66 (97%) lesions larger than 11 mm (P < .001). ICCs for clockface, distance from nipple, and individual lesion diameter all exceeded 0.7, indicating high reliability. For shape, margins, and final assessments of solid lesions, {kappa} values were 0.62, 0.67 (substantial agreement), and 0.52 (moderate agreement), respectively. Of 110 detections of consensus cysts 8 mm and smaller, 15 (14%) detections were considered to be of solid lesions by at least one reader.

Conclusion: Larger lesions (>11 mm) are most consistently detected, with fewer than half of lesions 5 mm or smaller in mean diameter identified; substantial agreement was found for description of lesion size, location, and key features, and moderate agreement was found for lesion management.

© RSNA, 2006




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J Ultrasound MedHome page
AIUM Practice Guideline for the Performance of a Breast Ultrasound Examination
J. Ultrasound Med., January 1, 2009; 28(1): 105 - 109.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
M. J. Kim, E.-K. Kim, J. Y. Kwak, B.-W. Park, S.-I. Kim, J. Sohn, and K. K. Oh
Sonographic Surveillance for the Detection of Contralateral Metachronous Breast Cancer in an Asian Population
Am. J. Roentgenol., January 1, 2009; 192(1): 221 - 228.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JAMAHome page
W. A. Berg, J. D. Blume, J. B. Cormack, E. B. Mendelson, D. Lehrer, M. Bohm-Velez, E. D. Pisano, R. A. Jong, W. P. Evans, M. J. Morton, et al.
Combined Screening With Ultrasound and Mammography vs Mammography Alone in Women at Elevated Risk of Breast Cancer
JAMA, May 14, 2008; 299(18): 2151 - 2163.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
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]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
M. J. Kim, E.-K. Kim, J. Y. Kwak, B.-W. Park, S.-I. Kim, J. Sohn, and K. K. Oh
Role of Sonography in the Detection of Contralateral Metachronous Breast Cancer in an Asian Population
Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2008; 190(2): 476 - 480.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 2006 by the Radiological Society of North America.