American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 166, 773-778, Copyright © 1996 by American Roentgen Ray Society

ARTICLES

Breast imaging reporting and data system standardized mammography lexicon: observer variability in lesion description

JA Baker, PJ Kornguth and CE Floyd Jr
Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA.

OBJECTIVE. The American College of Radiology has recommended the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) as a standardized scheme for describing mammographic lesions. The objective of this study was to measure inter- and intraobserver variabilities of radiologists' descriptions of mammographic lesions with the BI-RADS standardized lexicon. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Sixty mammographic studies with abnormal findings were independently evaluated by five radiologists. Readers described each lesion by selecting a single term from the BI- RADS lexicon for each of eight morphologic categories: calcification distribution, number, and description; mass margin, shape, and density; associated findings; and special cases. Additionally, each reader assessed the significance of each lesion on a five-point scale. One observer read each case twice. Inter- and intraobserver variabilities for each description and interpretation category of the BI-RADS lexicon were determined with Cohen's kappa statistic. Radiologists' specific use of calcification descriptors was evaluated in detail. RESULTS. Substantial agreement was observed between readers for choosing terms to describe masses and calcifications (kappa value range, 0.50 +/- 0.02- 0.77 +/- 0.03). Intraobserver agreement for these categories was similar (kappa value range, 0.57 +/- 0.07-0.84 +/- 0.09). Considerable inter- and intraobserver variabilities were noted for the "associated findings" and "special cases" categories (kappa value range, -0.02 +/- 0.14-0.38 +/- 0.12), a result that in part reflected the small number of cases to which these categories were assigned. Moderate interobserver variability and little intraobserver variability in the interpretation of lesion significance were noted when an assessment classification similar to that of BI-RADS was used. Use of terms to describe calcifications did not always conform to BI-RADS-defined levels of suspicion. CONCLUSION. BI-RADS is moderately successful in providing a standardized language for physicians to describe lesion morphology. Efforts to reevaluate specific terms and the diagnostic significance assigned to calcification descriptors may prove useful in maintaining the promise of improved quality with the BI-RADS standardized mammography lexicon.
CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				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]

				E. S. Burnside, J. E. Ochsner, K. J. Fowler, J. P. Fine, L. R. Salkowski, D. L. Rubin, and G. A. Sisney Use of Microcalcification Descriptors in BI-RADS 4th Edition to Stratify Risk of Malignancy Radiology, February 1, 2007; 242(2): 388 - 395. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M P Sampat, G J Whitman, T W Stephens, L D Broemeling, N A Heger, A C Bovik, and M K Markey The reliability of measuring physical characteristics of spiculated masses on mammography Br. J. Radiol., December 1, 2006; 79(Special_Issue_2): S134 - S140. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. A. Berg, J. D. Blume, J. B. Cormack, and E. B. Mendelson Operator Dependence of Physician-performed Whole-Breast US: Lesion Detection and Characterization. Radiology, November 1, 2006; 241(2): 355 - 365. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. Lazarus, M. B. Mainiero, B. Schepps, S. L. Koelliker, and L. S. Livingston BI-RADS Lexicon for US and Mammography: Interobserver Variability and Positive Predictive Value Radiology, May 1, 2006; 239(2): 385 - 391. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Liberman, G. Mason, E. A. Morris, and D. D. Dershaw Does Size Matter? Positive Predictive Value of MRI-Detected Breast Lesions as a Function of Lesion Size Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2006; 186(2): 426 - 430. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. J. Karimova, S. N. Rai, X. Deng, D. J. Ingle, A. C. Ralph, M. D. Neel, and S. C. Kaste MRI of Knee Osteonecrosis in Children with Leukemia and Lymphoma: Part 1, Observer Agreement Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2006; 186(2): 470 - 476. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R M Pijnappel, P H M Peeters, J H C L Hendriks, and W P T. M Mali Reproducibility of mammographic classifications for non-palpable suspect lesions with microcalcifications Br. J. Radiol., April 1, 2004; 77(916): 312 - 314. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. A. Baker, E. L. Rosen, J. Y. Lo, E. I. Gimenez, R. Walsh, and M. S. Soo Computer-Aided Detection (CAD) in Screening Mammography: Sensitivity of Commercial CAD Systems for Detecting Architectural Distortion Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2003; 181(4): 1083 - 1088. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Liberman, E. A. Morris, D. D. Dershaw, A. F. Abramson, and L. K. Tan Ductal Enhancement on MR Imaging of the Breast Am. J. Roentgenol., August 1, 2003; 181(2): 519 - 525. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. L. Kundel and M. Polansky Measurement of Observer Agreement Radiology, August 1, 2003; 228(2): 303 - 308. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. J. Fabian, B. F. Kimler, D. A. Brady, M. S. Mayo, C. H. J. Chang, J. A. Ferraro, C. M. Zalles, A. L. Stanton, S. Masood, W. E. Grizzle, et al. A Phase II Breast Cancer Chemoprevention Trial of Oral {alpha}-Difluoromethylornithine: Breast Tissue, Imaging, and Serum and Urine Biomarkers Clin. Cancer Res., October 1, 2002; 8(10): 3105 - 3117. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. A. Berg, C. J. D'Orsi, V. P. Jackson, L. W. Bassett, C. A. Beam, R. S. Lewis, and P. E. Crewson 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? Radiology, September 1, 2002; 224(3): 871 - 880. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Lehman, S. Holt, S. Peacock, E. White, and N. Urban Use of the American College of Radiology BI-RADS Guidelines by Community Radiologists: Concordance of Assessments and Recommendations Assigned to Screening Mammograms Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2002; 179(1): 15 - 20. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. L. Rosen, J. A. Baker, and M. S. Soo Malignant Lesions Initially Subjected to Short-term Mammographic Follow-up Radiology, April 1, 2002; 223(1): 221 - 228. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Esserman, H. Cowley, C. Eberle, A. Kirkpatrick, S. Chang, K. Berbaum, and A. Gale Improving the Accuracy of Mammography: Volume and Outcome Relationships J Natl Cancer Inst, March 6, 2002; 94(5): 369 - 375. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. J. Kim, E. A. Morris, L. Liberman, D. J. Ballon, L. R. L. Trenta, O. Hadar, A. Abramson, and D. D. Dershaw Observer Variability and Applicability of BI-RADS Terminology for Breast MR Imaging: Invasive Carcinomas as Focal Masses Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2001; 177(3): 551 - 557. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. J. Vyborny, T. Doi, K. F. O'Shaughnessy, H. M. Romsdahl, A. C. Schneider, and A. A. Stein Breast Cancer: Importance of Spiculation in Computer-aided Detection Radiology, June 1, 2000; 215(3): 703 - 707. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				W. A. Berg, C. Campassi, P. Langenberg, and M. J. Sexton Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: Inter- and Intraobserver Variability in Feature Analysis and Final Assessment Am. J. Roentgenol., June 1, 2000; 174(6): 1769 - 1777. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				C. K. Kuhl, P. Mielcareck, S. Klaschik, C. Leutner, E. Wardelmann, J. Gieseke, and H. H. Schild Dynamic Breast MR Imaging: Are Signal Intensity Time Course Data Useful for Differential Diagnosis of Enhancing Lesions? Radiology, April 1, 1999; 211(1): 101 - 110. [Abstract] [Full Text]