Observer Agreement Using the ACR Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS)-Ultrasound, First Edition (2003)

Objective This study aims to evaluate the degree of inter- and intraobserver agreement when characterizing breast abnormalities using the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS)-ultrasound (US) lexicon, as defined by the American College of Radiology (ACR). Materials and Methods Two hundred ninety three female patients with 314 lesions underwent US-guided biopsies at one facility during a two-year period. Static sonographic images of each breast lesion were acquired and reviewed by four radiologists with expertise in breast imaging. Each radiologist independently evaluated all cases and described the mass according to BI-RADS-US. To assess intraobserver variability, one of the four radiologists reassessed all of the cases one month after the initial evaluation. Inter- and intraobserver variabilities were determined using Cohen's kappa (k) statistics. Results The greatest degree of reliability for a descriptor was found for mass orientation (k = 0.61) and the least concordance of fair was found for the mass margin (k = 0.32) and echo pattern (k = 0.36). Others descriptive terms: shape, lesion boundary and posterior features (k = 0.42, k = 0.55 and k = 0.53, respectively) and the final assessment (k = 0.51) demonstrated only moderate levels of agreement. A substantial degree of intraobserver agreement was found when classifying all morphologic features: shape, orientation, margin, lesion boundary, echo pattern and posterior feature (k = 0.73, k = 0.68, k = 0.64, 0.68, k = 0.65 and k = 0.64, respectively) and rendering final assessments (k = 0.65). Conclusion Although BI-RADS-US was created to achieve a consensus among radiologists when describing breast abnormalities, our study shows substantial intraobserver agreement but only moderate interobserver agreement in the mass description and final assessment of breast abnormalities according to its use. A better agreement will ultimately require specialized education, as well as self-auditing practice tests.

[1]  A. Stavros,et al.  Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. , 1995, Radiology.

[2]  N Segnan,et al.  Inter-observer and intra-observer variability of mammogram interpretation: a field study. , 1992, European journal of cancer.

[3]  H. Svanholm,et al.  Reproducibility of histomorphologic diagnoses with special reference to the kappa statistic , 1989, APMIS : acta pathologica, microbiologica, et immunologica Scandinavica.

[4]  C. Merritt,et al.  Toward a standardized breast ultrasound lexicon, BI-RADS: ultrasound. , 2001, Seminars in roentgenology.

[5]  J. Elmore,et al.  Variability in radiologists' interpretations of mammograms. , 1994, The New England journal of medicine.

[6]  P. Vineis,et al.  Inter-Observer Variability in the Interpretation of Mammograms , 1988, Tumori.

[7]  J. Baker,et al.  BI-RADS for sonography: positive and negative predictive values of sonographic features. , 2005, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[8]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[9]  P. Skaane,et al.  Interobserver Variation in the Interpretation of Breast Imaging , 1997, Acta radiologica.

[10]  C. Floyd,et al.  Breast imaging reporting and data system standardized mammography lexicon: observer variability in lesion description. , 1996, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[11]  M S Soo,et al.  Sonography of solid breast lesions: observer variability of lesion description and assessment. , 1999, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[12]  Robert M. Nishikawa,et al.  Po-topic III-06: The potential of computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) to reduce variability in radiologists’ interpretation of mammograms , 2003 .

[13]  M. Mainiero,et al.  BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value. , 2006, Radiology.