Interreader Variability and Predictive Value of US Descriptions of Solid Breast Masses: Pilot Study

This study evaluated the specificity of ultrasound (US) characteristics of solid breast lesions and the interreader variability in their interpretation. In 61 patients, 70 sonographically visible solid masses, scheduled for biopsy because of findings from conventional imaging, were prospectively and...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Academic radiology 2001-04, Vol.8 (4), p.335-342
Hauptverfasser: Arger, Peter H., Sehgal, Chandra M., Conant, Emily F., Zuckerman, Julia, Rowling, Susan E., Patton, Jill A.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 342
container_issue 4
container_start_page 335
container_title Academic radiology
container_volume 8
creator Arger, Peter H.
Sehgal, Chandra M.
Conant, Emily F.
Zuckerman, Julia
Rowling, Susan E.
Patton, Jill A.
description This study evaluated the specificity of ultrasound (US) characteristics of solid breast lesions and the interreader variability in their interpretation. In 61 patients, 70 sonographically visible solid masses, scheduled for biopsy because of findings from conventional imaging, were prospectively and sequentially accrued for evaluation. Three readers interpreted the sonograms and described the solid masses in terms of established US characteristics. The specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) for each characteristic were calculated by comparing US findings with biopsy findings, and interreader variability was evaluated. Five assessment categories were developed to guide recommendations for patient care. The relative performance of each reader was assessed by measuring the PPV for each assessment category and by measuring the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. The specificity and PPV were calculated for all characteristics and for each reader. The average specificities of the three readers for the most frequently used six characteristics were as follows: spiculation, 97% ± 5 (standard deviation); taller than wide, 91% ± 4; central shadowing, 77% ± 1; markedly hypoechoic, 86% ± 5; duct extension, 95% ± 5; and microlobulation, 84% ± 3 (overall average specificity, 88.5%). The average PPVs for categories II–V were 5%, 10%, 63%, and 94%, respectively. The readers' interpretations were similar and correlated well. The proposed US recommendation system is an accurate predictor of histologic findings. A sonographic classification lexicon should prove valuable.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/S1076-6332(03)80503-2
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_77038437</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1076633203805032</els_id><sourcerecordid>77038437</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-e294t-79a0de97f33e5e67e7df0767dbd4bc5c2d3c54ceb4714ead8885ee15aa99b3433</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkU9LJDEQxYOsqKt-hF1yWvTQmnQlnbQXUXdXBUVh1GtIJzUQ6ekek7Qw396Mf86eqqj6UdR7j5BfnB1xxpvjGWeqqRqA-oDBoWaSQVVvkB2ula4EE82P0n8h2-RnSs-Mcdlo2CLbnNctKF3vEHc9ZIwRrcdIn2wMtgt9yCtqB0_vI_rgcnjFsuonpOOcPs7oX0wuhmUO45DWo9nYB0_Py5GU6a1NCdMJvQ_9mOksT361Rzbntk-4_1l3yeP_fw8XV9XN3eX1xdlNhXUrcqVayzy2ag6AEhuFys-LAOU7LzonXe3BSeGwE4qL8rDWWiJyaW3bdiAAdsmfj7vLOL5MmLJZhOSw7-2A45SMUgy0APUtCHWxmElZwN-f4NQt0JtlDAsbV-bLvwKcfgBYdL0GjCa5gIMrvkV02fgxGM7MOjHznphZx2EYmPfETA1v9a-HrA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>32101055</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Interreader Variability and Predictive Value of US Descriptions of Solid Breast Masses: Pilot Study</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Arger, Peter H. ; Sehgal, Chandra M. ; Conant, Emily F. ; Zuckerman, Julia ; Rowling, Susan E. ; Patton, Jill A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Arger, Peter H. ; Sehgal, Chandra M. ; Conant, Emily F. ; Zuckerman, Julia ; Rowling, Susan E. ; Patton, Jill A.</creatorcontrib><description>This study evaluated the specificity of ultrasound (US) characteristics of solid breast lesions and the interreader variability in their interpretation. In 61 patients, 70 sonographically visible solid masses, scheduled for biopsy because of findings from conventional imaging, were prospectively and sequentially accrued for evaluation. Three readers interpreted the sonograms and described the solid masses in terms of established US characteristics. The specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) for each characteristic were calculated by comparing US findings with biopsy findings, and interreader variability was evaluated. Five assessment categories were developed to guide recommendations for patient care. The relative performance of each reader was assessed by measuring the PPV for each assessment category and by measuring the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. The specificity and PPV were calculated for all characteristics and for each reader. The average specificities of the three readers for the most frequently used six characteristics were as follows: spiculation, 97% ± 5 (standard deviation); taller than wide, 91% ± 4; central shadowing, 77% ± 1; markedly hypoechoic, 86% ± 5; duct extension, 95% ± 5; and microlobulation, 84% ± 3 (overall average specificity, 88.5%). The average PPVs for categories II–V were 5%, 10%, 63%, and 94%, respectively. The readers' interpretations were similar and correlated well. The proposed US recommendation system is an accurate predictor of histologic findings. A sonographic classification lexicon should prove valuable.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1076-6332</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1878-4046</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/S1076-6332(03)80503-2</identifier><identifier>PMID: 11293782</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Breast - pathology ; Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Breast Neoplasms - epidemiology ; Breast Neoplasms - pathology ; breast neoplasms, US ; Breast, US ; Female ; Humans ; Middle Aged ; Observer Variation ; Pilot Projects ; Predictive Value of Tests ; Random Allocation ; ROC Curve ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Ultrasonography, Mammary</subject><ispartof>Academic radiology, 2001-04, Vol.8 (4), p.335-342</ispartof><rights>2001 Acad Radiol</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1076-6332(03)80503-2$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,3537,27905,27906,45976</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11293782$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Arger, Peter H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sehgal, Chandra M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Conant, Emily F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zuckerman, Julia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rowling, Susan E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Patton, Jill A.</creatorcontrib><title>Interreader Variability and Predictive Value of US Descriptions of Solid Breast Masses: Pilot Study</title><title>Academic radiology</title><addtitle>Acad Radiol</addtitle><description>This study evaluated the specificity of ultrasound (US) characteristics of solid breast lesions and the interreader variability in their interpretation. In 61 patients, 70 sonographically visible solid masses, scheduled for biopsy because of findings from conventional imaging, were prospectively and sequentially accrued for evaluation. Three readers interpreted the sonograms and described the solid masses in terms of established US characteristics. The specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) for each characteristic were calculated by comparing US findings with biopsy findings, and interreader variability was evaluated. Five assessment categories were developed to guide recommendations for patient care. The relative performance of each reader was assessed by measuring the PPV for each assessment category and by measuring the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. The specificity and PPV were calculated for all characteristics and for each reader. The average specificities of the three readers for the most frequently used six characteristics were as follows: spiculation, 97% ± 5 (standard deviation); taller than wide, 91% ± 4; central shadowing, 77% ± 1; markedly hypoechoic, 86% ± 5; duct extension, 95% ± 5; and microlobulation, 84% ± 3 (overall average specificity, 88.5%). The average PPVs for categories II–V were 5%, 10%, 63%, and 94%, respectively. The readers' interpretations were similar and correlated well. The proposed US recommendation system is an accurate predictor of histologic findings. A sonographic classification lexicon should prove valuable.</description><subject>Breast - pathology</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - epidemiology</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - pathology</subject><subject>breast neoplasms, US</subject><subject>Breast, US</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Observer Variation</subject><subject>Pilot Projects</subject><subject>Predictive Value of Tests</subject><subject>Random Allocation</subject><subject>ROC Curve</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Ultrasonography, Mammary</subject><issn>1076-6332</issn><issn>1878-4046</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2001</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkU9LJDEQxYOsqKt-hF1yWvTQmnQlnbQXUXdXBUVh1GtIJzUQ6ekek7Qw396Mf86eqqj6UdR7j5BfnB1xxpvjGWeqqRqA-oDBoWaSQVVvkB2ula4EE82P0n8h2-RnSs-Mcdlo2CLbnNctKF3vEHc9ZIwRrcdIn2wMtgt9yCtqB0_vI_rgcnjFsuonpOOcPs7oX0wuhmUO45DWo9nYB0_Py5GU6a1NCdMJvQ_9mOksT361Rzbntk-4_1l3yeP_fw8XV9XN3eX1xdlNhXUrcqVayzy2ag6AEhuFys-LAOU7LzonXe3BSeGwE4qL8rDWWiJyaW3bdiAAdsmfj7vLOL5MmLJZhOSw7-2A45SMUgy0APUtCHWxmElZwN-f4NQt0JtlDAsbV-bLvwKcfgBYdL0GjCa5gIMrvkV02fgxGM7MOjHznphZx2EYmPfETA1v9a-HrA</recordid><startdate>20010401</startdate><enddate>20010401</enddate><creator>Arger, Peter H.</creator><creator>Sehgal, Chandra M.</creator><creator>Conant, Emily F.</creator><creator>Zuckerman, Julia</creator><creator>Rowling, Susan E.</creator><creator>Patton, Jill A.</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>7U5</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20010401</creationdate><title>Interreader Variability and Predictive Value of US Descriptions of Solid Breast Masses: Pilot Study</title><author>Arger, Peter H. ; Sehgal, Chandra M. ; Conant, Emily F. ; Zuckerman, Julia ; Rowling, Susan E. ; Patton, Jill A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-e294t-79a0de97f33e5e67e7df0767dbd4bc5c2d3c54ceb4714ead8885ee15aa99b3433</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2001</creationdate><topic>Breast - pathology</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - epidemiology</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - pathology</topic><topic>breast neoplasms, US</topic><topic>Breast, US</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Observer Variation</topic><topic>Pilot Projects</topic><topic>Predictive Value of Tests</topic><topic>Random Allocation</topic><topic>ROC Curve</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Ultrasonography, Mammary</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Arger, Peter H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sehgal, Chandra M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Conant, Emily F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zuckerman, Julia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rowling, Susan E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Patton, Jill A.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>Solid State and Superconductivity Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Academic radiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Arger, Peter H.</au><au>Sehgal, Chandra M.</au><au>Conant, Emily F.</au><au>Zuckerman, Julia</au><au>Rowling, Susan E.</au><au>Patton, Jill A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Interreader Variability and Predictive Value of US Descriptions of Solid Breast Masses: Pilot Study</atitle><jtitle>Academic radiology</jtitle><addtitle>Acad Radiol</addtitle><date>2001-04-01</date><risdate>2001</risdate><volume>8</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>335</spage><epage>342</epage><pages>335-342</pages><issn>1076-6332</issn><eissn>1878-4046</eissn><abstract>This study evaluated the specificity of ultrasound (US) characteristics of solid breast lesions and the interreader variability in their interpretation. In 61 patients, 70 sonographically visible solid masses, scheduled for biopsy because of findings from conventional imaging, were prospectively and sequentially accrued for evaluation. Three readers interpreted the sonograms and described the solid masses in terms of established US characteristics. The specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) for each characteristic were calculated by comparing US findings with biopsy findings, and interreader variability was evaluated. Five assessment categories were developed to guide recommendations for patient care. The relative performance of each reader was assessed by measuring the PPV for each assessment category and by measuring the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. The specificity and PPV were calculated for all characteristics and for each reader. The average specificities of the three readers for the most frequently used six characteristics were as follows: spiculation, 97% ± 5 (standard deviation); taller than wide, 91% ± 4; central shadowing, 77% ± 1; markedly hypoechoic, 86% ± 5; duct extension, 95% ± 5; and microlobulation, 84% ± 3 (overall average specificity, 88.5%). The average PPVs for categories II–V were 5%, 10%, 63%, and 94%, respectively. The readers' interpretations were similar and correlated well. The proposed US recommendation system is an accurate predictor of histologic findings. A sonographic classification lexicon should prove valuable.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>11293782</pmid><doi>10.1016/S1076-6332(03)80503-2</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1076-6332
ispartof Academic radiology, 2001-04, Vol.8 (4), p.335-342
issn 1076-6332
1878-4046
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_77038437
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Breast - pathology
Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging
Breast Neoplasms - epidemiology
Breast Neoplasms - pathology
breast neoplasms, US
Breast, US
Female
Humans
Middle Aged
Observer Variation
Pilot Projects
Predictive Value of Tests
Random Allocation
ROC Curve
Sensitivity and Specificity
Ultrasonography, Mammary
title Interreader Variability and Predictive Value of US Descriptions of Solid Breast Masses: Pilot Study
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-19T10%3A36%3A29IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Interreader%20Variability%20and%20Predictive%20Value%20of%20US%20Descriptions%20of%20Solid%20Breast%20Masses:%20Pilot%20Study&rft.jtitle=Academic%20radiology&rft.au=Arger,%20Peter%20H.&rft.date=2001-04-01&rft.volume=8&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=335&rft.epage=342&rft.pages=335-342&rft.issn=1076-6332&rft.eissn=1878-4046&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/S1076-6332(03)80503-2&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E77038437%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=32101055&rft_id=info:pmid/11293782&rft_els_id=S1076633203805032&rfr_iscdi=true