AJR Women's Imaging Online
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
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 Baker, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Mengoni, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Baker, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Mengoni, P.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 172, 1621-1625, Copyright © 1999 by American Roentgen Ray Society


ARTICLES

Sonography of solid breast lesions: observer variability of lesion description and assessment

JA Baker, PJ Kornguth, MS Soo, R Walsh and P Mengoni
Florida Radiology Associates P.A., Altamonte Springs 32715, USA.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to measure the level of inter- and intraobserver agreement and to evaluate the causes of variability in radiologists' descriptions and assessments of sonograms of solid breast masses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty sonograms of solid masses were evaluated independently by five radiologists. Observers used the lexicon of a recently published benchmark report on sonographic appearances of breast masses to determine mass shape, margin, echogenicity, echo texture, presence of echogenic pseudocapsule, and acoustic transmission. Final diagnostic assessments were determined by applying the rule-based model of the same benchmark report to the radiologists' descriptions. In addition, one observer interpreted each case twice to evaluate intraobserver variability. Inter- and intraobserver variability were measured using Cohen's kappa statistic. We also investigated causes of variability in radiologists' descriptions. RESULTS: Interobserver agreement ranged from lowest for determining the presence of an echogenic pseudocapsule (kappa = .09) to highest for determining mass shape (kappa = .8). Intraobserver agreement was lowest for mass echo texture (kappa = .24) and greatest for mass shape (kappa = .79). Variability in descriptions of lesions contributed to interobserver (kappa = .51) and some intraobserver (kappa = .66) inconsistency in assessing the likelihood of malignancy. CONCLUSION: Lack of uniformity among observers' use of descriptive terms for solid breast masses resulted in inconsistent diagnoses. The need for improved definitions and additional illustrative examples could be addressed by developing a standardized lexicon similar to that of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


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
J Ultrasound MedHome page
H. Zhi, B. Ou, B.-M. Luo, X. Feng, Y.-L. Wen, and H.-Y. Yang
Comparison of Ultrasound Elastography, Mammography, and Sonography in the Diagnosis of Solid Breast Lesions
J. Ultrasound Med., June 1, 2007; 26(6): 807 - 815.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
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]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
N. Cho, W. K. Moon, J. H. Cha, S. M. Kim, B.-K. Han, E.-K. Kim, M. H. Kim, S. Y. Chung, H.-Y. Choi, and J.-G. Im
Differentiating Benign from Malignant Solid Breast Masses: Comparison of Two-dimensional and Three-dimensional US
Radiology, July 1, 2006; 240(1): 26 - 32.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
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]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
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]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
J. H. Cha, W. K. Moon, N. Cho, S. Y. Chung, S. H. Park, J. M. Park, B. K. Han, Y. H. Choe, G. Cho, and J.-G. Im
Differentiation of Benign from Malignant Solid Breast Masses: Conventional US versus Spatial Compound Imaging
Radiology, December 1, 2005; 237(3): 841 - 846.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
A. S. Hong, E. L. Rosen, M. S. Soo, and J. A. Baker
BI-RADS for Sonography: Positive and Negative Predictive Values of Sonographic Features
Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2005; 184(4): 1260 - 1265.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Ultrasound MedHome page
C. M. Sehgal, T. W. Cary, S. A. Kangas, S. P. Weinstein, S. M. Schultz, P. H. Arger, and E. F. Conant
Computer-Based Margin Analysis of Breast Sonography for Differentiating Malignant and Benign Masses
J. Ultrasound Med., September 1, 2004; 23(9): 1201 - 1209.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
ChestHome page
K. M. Baker, D. A. Brand, and J. Hen Jr
Classifying Asthma: Disagreement Among Specialists
Chest, December 1, 2003; 124(6): 2156 - 2163.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
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]


Home page
Br. J. Radiol.Home page
A M Bosch, A G H Kessels, G L Beets, K L C G Vranken, A C Borstlap, M F von Meyenfeldt, and J M A van Engelshoven
Interexamination variation of whole breast ultrasound
Br. J. Radiol., May 1, 2003; 76(905): 328 - 331.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
W. A. Berg, C. I. Campassi, and O. B. Ioffe
Cystic Lesions of the Breast: Sonographic-Pathologic Correlation
Radiology, April 1, 2003; 227(1): 183 - 191.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
J. A. Baker and M. S. Soo
Breast US: Assessment of Technical Quality and Image Interpretation
Radiology, April 1, 2002; 223(1): 229 - 238.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
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]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
I. Vizcaíno, L. Gadea, L. Andreo, D. Salas, F. Ruiz-Perales, D. Cuevas, C. Herranz, and F. Bueno
Short-term Follow-up Results in 795 Nonpalpable Probably Benign Lesions Detected at Screening Mammography
Radiology, May 1, 2001; 219(2): 475 - 483.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
J. W. T. Leung and E. A. Sickles
Multiple Bilateral Masses Detected on Screening Mammography: Assessment of Need for Recall Imaging
Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2000; 175(1): 23 - 29.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
G. D. Tourassi
Journey toward Computer-aided Diagnosis: Role of Image Texture Analysis
Radiology, November 1, 1999; 213(2): 317 - 320.
[Full Text]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1999 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.