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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Academic radiology 2001-04, Vol.8 (4), p.335-342 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
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 |