Interobserver Variation in the Interpretation of Breast Imaging: Comparison of mammography, ultrasonography, and both combined in the interpretation of palpable noncalcified breast masses
Purpose: To analyze interobserver agreement in the interpretation of palpable noncalcified breast masses by means of mammography, ultrasonography, and a combination of both methods. Material and Methods: Mammograms and ultrasonograms of 100 benign breast masses and 100 malignant ones in 200 patients...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Acta radiologica (1987) 1997-07, Vol.38 (4), p.497-502 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 502 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 497 |
container_title | Acta radiologica (1987) |
container_volume | 38 |
creator | Skaane, P. Engedal, K. Skjennald, A. |
description | Purpose: To analyze interobserver agreement in the interpretation of palpable noncalcified breast masses by means of mammography, ultrasonography, and a combination of both methods.
Material and Methods: Mammograms and ultrasonograms of 100 benign breast masses and 100 malignant ones in 200 patients were retrospectively analyzed by 4 radiologists with experience in both imaging modalities. The images were analyzed independently and without knowledge of the final diagnosis. The analysis was performed in 3 sessions and used a 5-point rating scale for probability of malignancy. The interobserver variation was analyzed by means of observed agreement, kappa, and weighted kappa statistics based on the 5-point rating scale and a 3-level scale of the collapsed 5-point scale. The chi-square statistic was used for testing the equality of the kappa values.
Results: The overall kappa value on the 3-level scale was 0.48 (range 0.37-0.61) for ultrasonography, 0.58 (range 0.52-0.66) for mammography, and 0.71 (range 0.63-0.79) for the combined reading. The kappa values were statistically different for ultrasonography but did not differ significantly for the mammographic and combined readings. The combined reading showed higher kappa values than mammography alone, and the improvement was statistically significant for 3 of the 6 pairs of comparison.
Conclusion: Radiologists differ substantially in their interpretations of mammograms and breast ultrasonograms. Agreement was highest in the combined reading, intermediate in mammography, and lowest in ultrasonography. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1080/02841859709174375 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_79164427</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1080_02841859709174375</sage_id><sourcerecordid>79164427</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c316t-aeb9b699dcf2d1822e68866a036a5b3863b7f3ca424f353b3596768bb1aa9cc63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kMtKw0AUhgdRaq0-gAshC3EXnftlJVq8FApu1G04M53UlFzqTCL49qYmdCO4OnD-7z8HPoTOCb4mWOMbTDUnWhiFDVGcKXGApkRinGIuxCGa7vK0B8gxOolxgzGhSpAJmhjKsZRyim4XdetDY6MPXz4k7xAKaIumToo6aT988htvg2-HbZMn98FDbJNFBeuiXp-ioxzK6M_GOUNvjw-v8-d0-fK0mN8tU8eIbFPw1lhpzMrldEU0pV5qLSVgJkFYpiWzKmcOOOU5E8wyYaSS2loCYJyTbIauhrvb0Hx2PrZZVUTnyxJq33QxU4ZIzqnqQTKALjQxBp9n21BUEL4zgrOdtOyPtL5zMR7vbOVX-8Zoqc8vxxyigzIPULsi7rHeKVPG9Nj1gEVY-2zTdKHulfzz9wc1OoA6</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>79164427</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Interobserver Variation in the Interpretation of Breast Imaging: Comparison of mammography, ultrasonography, and both combined in the interpretation of palpable noncalcified breast masses</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Taylor & Francis</source><creator>Skaane, P. ; Engedal, K. ; Skjennald, A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Skaane, P. ; Engedal, K. ; Skjennald, A.</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose: To analyze interobserver agreement in the interpretation of palpable noncalcified breast masses by means of mammography, ultrasonography, and a combination of both methods.
Material and Methods: Mammograms and ultrasonograms of 100 benign breast masses and 100 malignant ones in 200 patients were retrospectively analyzed by 4 radiologists with experience in both imaging modalities. The images were analyzed independently and without knowledge of the final diagnosis. The analysis was performed in 3 sessions and used a 5-point rating scale for probability of malignancy. The interobserver variation was analyzed by means of observed agreement, kappa, and weighted kappa statistics based on the 5-point rating scale and a 3-level scale of the collapsed 5-point scale. The chi-square statistic was used for testing the equality of the kappa values.
Results: The overall kappa value on the 3-level scale was 0.48 (range 0.37-0.61) for ultrasonography, 0.58 (range 0.52-0.66) for mammography, and 0.71 (range 0.63-0.79) for the combined reading. The kappa values were statistically different for ultrasonography but did not differ significantly for the mammographic and combined readings. The combined reading showed higher kappa values than mammography alone, and the improvement was statistically significant for 3 of the 6 pairs of comparison.
Conclusion: Radiologists differ substantially in their interpretations of mammograms and breast ultrasonograms. Agreement was highest in the combined reading, intermediate in mammography, and lowest in ultrasonography.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0284-1851</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1600-0455</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1080/02841859709174375</identifier><identifier>PMID: 9240666</identifier><identifier>CODEN: ACRAE3</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London, England: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Biological and medical sciences ; Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Breast Neoplasms - epidemiology ; Female ; Genital system. Mammary gland ; Humans ; Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects) ; Mammography - statistics & numerical data ; Medical sciences ; Observer Variation ; Radiodiagnosis. Nmr imagery. Nmr spectrometry ; Retrospective Studies ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Ultrasonic investigative techniques ; Ultrasonography, Mammary - statistics & numerical data</subject><ispartof>Acta radiologica (1987), 1997-07, Vol.38 (4), p.497-502</ispartof><rights>Acta Radiologica</rights><rights>1997 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,27905,27906</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=2753799$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9240666$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Skaane, P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Engedal, K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Skjennald, A.</creatorcontrib><title>Interobserver Variation in the Interpretation of Breast Imaging: Comparison of mammography, ultrasonography, and both combined in the interpretation of palpable noncalcified breast masses</title><title>Acta radiologica (1987)</title><addtitle>Acta Radiol</addtitle><description>Purpose: To analyze interobserver agreement in the interpretation of palpable noncalcified breast masses by means of mammography, ultrasonography, and a combination of both methods.
Material and Methods: Mammograms and ultrasonograms of 100 benign breast masses and 100 malignant ones in 200 patients were retrospectively analyzed by 4 radiologists with experience in both imaging modalities. The images were analyzed independently and without knowledge of the final diagnosis. The analysis was performed in 3 sessions and used a 5-point rating scale for probability of malignancy. The interobserver variation was analyzed by means of observed agreement, kappa, and weighted kappa statistics based on the 5-point rating scale and a 3-level scale of the collapsed 5-point scale. The chi-square statistic was used for testing the equality of the kappa values.
Results: The overall kappa value on the 3-level scale was 0.48 (range 0.37-0.61) for ultrasonography, 0.58 (range 0.52-0.66) for mammography, and 0.71 (range 0.63-0.79) for the combined reading. The kappa values were statistically different for ultrasonography but did not differ significantly for the mammographic and combined readings. The combined reading showed higher kappa values than mammography alone, and the improvement was statistically significant for 3 of the 6 pairs of comparison.
Conclusion: Radiologists differ substantially in their interpretations of mammograms and breast ultrasonograms. Agreement was highest in the combined reading, intermediate in mammography, and lowest in ultrasonography.</description><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - epidemiology</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Genital system. Mammary gland</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects)</subject><subject>Mammography - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Observer Variation</subject><subject>Radiodiagnosis. Nmr imagery. Nmr spectrometry</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Ultrasonic investigative techniques</subject><subject>Ultrasonography, Mammary - statistics & numerical data</subject><issn>0284-1851</issn><issn>1600-0455</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1997</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kMtKw0AUhgdRaq0-gAshC3EXnftlJVq8FApu1G04M53UlFzqTCL49qYmdCO4OnD-7z8HPoTOCb4mWOMbTDUnWhiFDVGcKXGApkRinGIuxCGa7vK0B8gxOolxgzGhSpAJmhjKsZRyim4XdetDY6MPXz4k7xAKaIumToo6aT988htvg2-HbZMn98FDbJNFBeuiXp-ioxzK6M_GOUNvjw-v8-d0-fK0mN8tU8eIbFPw1lhpzMrldEU0pV5qLSVgJkFYpiWzKmcOOOU5E8wyYaSS2loCYJyTbIauhrvb0Hx2PrZZVUTnyxJq33QxU4ZIzqnqQTKALjQxBp9n21BUEL4zgrOdtOyPtL5zMR7vbOVX-8Zoqc8vxxyigzIPULsi7rHeKVPG9Nj1gEVY-2zTdKHulfzz9wc1OoA6</recordid><startdate>19970701</startdate><enddate>19970701</enddate><creator>Skaane, P.</creator><creator>Engedal, K.</creator><creator>Skjennald, A.</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>Taylor & Francis</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19970701</creationdate><title>Interobserver Variation in the Interpretation of Breast Imaging</title><author>Skaane, P. ; Engedal, K. ; Skjennald, A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c316t-aeb9b699dcf2d1822e68866a036a5b3863b7f3ca424f353b3596768bb1aa9cc63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1997</creationdate><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - epidemiology</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Genital system. Mammary gland</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects)</topic><topic>Mammography - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Observer Variation</topic><topic>Radiodiagnosis. Nmr imagery. Nmr spectrometry</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Ultrasonic investigative techniques</topic><topic>Ultrasonography, Mammary - statistics & numerical data</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Skaane, P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Engedal, K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Skjennald, A.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Acta radiologica (1987)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Skaane, P.</au><au>Engedal, K.</au><au>Skjennald, A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Interobserver Variation in the Interpretation of Breast Imaging: Comparison of mammography, ultrasonography, and both combined in the interpretation of palpable noncalcified breast masses</atitle><jtitle>Acta radiologica (1987)</jtitle><addtitle>Acta Radiol</addtitle><date>1997-07-01</date><risdate>1997</risdate><volume>38</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>497</spage><epage>502</epage><pages>497-502</pages><issn>0284-1851</issn><eissn>1600-0455</eissn><coden>ACRAE3</coden><abstract>Purpose: To analyze interobserver agreement in the interpretation of palpable noncalcified breast masses by means of mammography, ultrasonography, and a combination of both methods.
Material and Methods: Mammograms and ultrasonograms of 100 benign breast masses and 100 malignant ones in 200 patients were retrospectively analyzed by 4 radiologists with experience in both imaging modalities. The images were analyzed independently and without knowledge of the final diagnosis. The analysis was performed in 3 sessions and used a 5-point rating scale for probability of malignancy. The interobserver variation was analyzed by means of observed agreement, kappa, and weighted kappa statistics based on the 5-point rating scale and a 3-level scale of the collapsed 5-point scale. The chi-square statistic was used for testing the equality of the kappa values.
Results: The overall kappa value on the 3-level scale was 0.48 (range 0.37-0.61) for ultrasonography, 0.58 (range 0.52-0.66) for mammography, and 0.71 (range 0.63-0.79) for the combined reading. The kappa values were statistically different for ultrasonography but did not differ significantly for the mammographic and combined readings. The combined reading showed higher kappa values than mammography alone, and the improvement was statistically significant for 3 of the 6 pairs of comparison.
Conclusion: Radiologists differ substantially in their interpretations of mammograms and breast ultrasonograms. Agreement was highest in the combined reading, intermediate in mammography, and lowest in ultrasonography.</abstract><cop>London, England</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>9240666</pmid><doi>10.1080/02841859709174375</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0284-1851 |
ispartof | Acta radiologica (1987), 1997-07, Vol.38 (4), p.497-502 |
issn | 0284-1851 1600-0455 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_79164427 |
source | MEDLINE; Taylor & Francis |
subjects | Biological and medical sciences Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging Breast Neoplasms - epidemiology Female Genital system. Mammary gland Humans Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects) Mammography - statistics & numerical data Medical sciences Observer Variation Radiodiagnosis. Nmr imagery. Nmr spectrometry Retrospective Studies Sensitivity and Specificity Ultrasonic investigative techniques Ultrasonography, Mammary - statistics & numerical data |
title | Interobserver Variation in the Interpretation of Breast Imaging: Comparison of mammography, ultrasonography, and both combined in the interpretation of palpable noncalcified breast masses |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-21T07%3A17%3A42IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Interobserver%20Variation%20in%20the%20Interpretation%20of%20Breast%20Imaging:%20Comparison%20of%20mammography,%20ultrasonography,%20and%20both%20combined%20in%20the%20interpretation%20of%20palpable%20noncalcified%20breast%20masses&rft.jtitle=Acta%20radiologica%20(1987)&rft.au=Skaane,%20P.&rft.date=1997-07-01&rft.volume=38&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=497&rft.epage=502&rft.pages=497-502&rft.issn=0284-1851&rft.eissn=1600-0455&rft.coden=ACRAE3&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080/02841859709174375&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E79164427%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=79164427&rft_id=info:pmid/9240666&rft_sage_id=10.1080_02841859709174375&rfr_iscdi=true |