Cargando…
Does the radiologist need to rescan the breast lesion to validate the final BI-RADS US assessment made on the static images in the diagnostic setting?
Purpose: To assess whether radiologist needs to rescan the breast lesion to validate the final American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) ultrasonography (US) assessment made on the static images in the diagnostic setting. Patients and methods: Image data...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Dove
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6535425/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31191021 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CMAR.S198435 |
_version_ | 1783421568706150400 |
---|---|
author | Hu, Yue Mei, Jingsi Jiang, Xiaofang Gu, Ran Liu, Fengtao Yang, Yaping Wang, Hongli Shen, Shiyu Jia, Haixia Liu, Qiang Gong, Chang |
author_facet | Hu, Yue Mei, Jingsi Jiang, Xiaofang Gu, Ran Liu, Fengtao Yang, Yaping Wang, Hongli Shen, Shiyu Jia, Haixia Liu, Qiang Gong, Chang |
author_sort | Hu, Yue |
collection | PubMed |
description | Purpose: To assess whether radiologist needs to rescan the breast lesion to validate the final American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) ultrasonography (US) assessment made on the static images in the diagnostic setting. Patients and methods: Image data on 1,070 patients with 1,070 category 3–5 breast lesions with a pathological diagnosis scanned between January and June 2016 were included. Both real-time and static image assessments were acquired for each lesion. The diagnostic performance was evaluated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. The positive predictive values (PPVs) of each category in the two groups were calculated according to the ACR BI-RADS manual and compared. Kappas were determined for agreement on two assessment approaches. Results: The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and negative predictive value for real-time US were 98.9%, 58.2%, 44.8% and 99.4%, and for static images were 98.9%, 57.1%, 44.1% and 99.3%, respectively. The performance of the two groups was not significantly different (areas under ROCs: 0.786 vs 0.780, P=0.566) if the final assessment was only dichotomized as negative (category 3) and positive (categories 4 and 5). All PPVs of each category for each assessment were within the reference range provided by the ACR in 2013 except subcategory 4B (reference range: >10% and ≤50%) of static image evaluation, which was also significantly higher than that of real-time assessment (54.8% vs 40.7%, P=0.037). The overall agreement of the two approaches was moderate (κ=0.43–0.56 according to different detailed assessment). Conclusion: Both static image and real-time assessment had similar diagnostic performance if only the treatment recommendations were considered, that is, follow-up or biopsy. However, as for subcategory 4B lesions without obviously benign or malignant US features, real-time scanning by the interpreter is recommended to obtain a more accurate BI-RADS assessment after assessing static images. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6535425 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Dove |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-65354252019-06-12 Does the radiologist need to rescan the breast lesion to validate the final BI-RADS US assessment made on the static images in the diagnostic setting? Hu, Yue Mei, Jingsi Jiang, Xiaofang Gu, Ran Liu, Fengtao Yang, Yaping Wang, Hongli Shen, Shiyu Jia, Haixia Liu, Qiang Gong, Chang Cancer Manag Res Original Research Purpose: To assess whether radiologist needs to rescan the breast lesion to validate the final American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) ultrasonography (US) assessment made on the static images in the diagnostic setting. Patients and methods: Image data on 1,070 patients with 1,070 category 3–5 breast lesions with a pathological diagnosis scanned between January and June 2016 were included. Both real-time and static image assessments were acquired for each lesion. The diagnostic performance was evaluated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. The positive predictive values (PPVs) of each category in the two groups were calculated according to the ACR BI-RADS manual and compared. Kappas were determined for agreement on two assessment approaches. Results: The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and negative predictive value for real-time US were 98.9%, 58.2%, 44.8% and 99.4%, and for static images were 98.9%, 57.1%, 44.1% and 99.3%, respectively. The performance of the two groups was not significantly different (areas under ROCs: 0.786 vs 0.780, P=0.566) if the final assessment was only dichotomized as negative (category 3) and positive (categories 4 and 5). All PPVs of each category for each assessment were within the reference range provided by the ACR in 2013 except subcategory 4B (reference range: >10% and ≤50%) of static image evaluation, which was also significantly higher than that of real-time assessment (54.8% vs 40.7%, P=0.037). The overall agreement of the two approaches was moderate (κ=0.43–0.56 according to different detailed assessment). Conclusion: Both static image and real-time assessment had similar diagnostic performance if only the treatment recommendations were considered, that is, follow-up or biopsy. However, as for subcategory 4B lesions without obviously benign or malignant US features, real-time scanning by the interpreter is recommended to obtain a more accurate BI-RADS assessment after assessing static images. Dove 2019-05-22 /pmc/articles/PMC6535425/ /pubmed/31191021 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CMAR.S198435 Text en © 2019 Hu et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms (https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php). |
spellingShingle | Original Research Hu, Yue Mei, Jingsi Jiang, Xiaofang Gu, Ran Liu, Fengtao Yang, Yaping Wang, Hongli Shen, Shiyu Jia, Haixia Liu, Qiang Gong, Chang Does the radiologist need to rescan the breast lesion to validate the final BI-RADS US assessment made on the static images in the diagnostic setting? |
title | Does the radiologist need to rescan the breast lesion to validate the final BI-RADS US assessment made on the static images in the diagnostic setting? |
title_full | Does the radiologist need to rescan the breast lesion to validate the final BI-RADS US assessment made on the static images in the diagnostic setting? |
title_fullStr | Does the radiologist need to rescan the breast lesion to validate the final BI-RADS US assessment made on the static images in the diagnostic setting? |
title_full_unstemmed | Does the radiologist need to rescan the breast lesion to validate the final BI-RADS US assessment made on the static images in the diagnostic setting? |
title_short | Does the radiologist need to rescan the breast lesion to validate the final BI-RADS US assessment made on the static images in the diagnostic setting? |
title_sort | does the radiologist need to rescan the breast lesion to validate the final bi-rads us assessment made on the static images in the diagnostic setting? |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6535425/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31191021 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CMAR.S198435 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT huyue doestheradiologistneedtorescanthebreastlesiontovalidatethefinalbiradsusassessmentmadeonthestaticimagesinthediagnosticsetting AT meijingsi doestheradiologistneedtorescanthebreastlesiontovalidatethefinalbiradsusassessmentmadeonthestaticimagesinthediagnosticsetting AT jiangxiaofang doestheradiologistneedtorescanthebreastlesiontovalidatethefinalbiradsusassessmentmadeonthestaticimagesinthediagnosticsetting AT guran doestheradiologistneedtorescanthebreastlesiontovalidatethefinalbiradsusassessmentmadeonthestaticimagesinthediagnosticsetting AT liufengtao doestheradiologistneedtorescanthebreastlesiontovalidatethefinalbiradsusassessmentmadeonthestaticimagesinthediagnosticsetting AT yangyaping doestheradiologistneedtorescanthebreastlesiontovalidatethefinalbiradsusassessmentmadeonthestaticimagesinthediagnosticsetting AT wanghongli doestheradiologistneedtorescanthebreastlesiontovalidatethefinalbiradsusassessmentmadeonthestaticimagesinthediagnosticsetting AT shenshiyu doestheradiologistneedtorescanthebreastlesiontovalidatethefinalbiradsusassessmentmadeonthestaticimagesinthediagnosticsetting AT jiahaixia doestheradiologistneedtorescanthebreastlesiontovalidatethefinalbiradsusassessmentmadeonthestaticimagesinthediagnosticsetting AT liuqiang doestheradiologistneedtorescanthebreastlesiontovalidatethefinalbiradsusassessmentmadeonthestaticimagesinthediagnosticsetting AT gongchang doestheradiologistneedtorescanthebreastlesiontovalidatethefinalbiradsusassessmentmadeonthestaticimagesinthediagnosticsetting |