-
AJR Am J Roentgenol · Apr 2011
Multicenter Study Clinical TrialInterpretation of positron emission mammography and MRI by experienced breast imaging radiologists: performance and observer reproducibility.
- Deepa Narayanan, Kathleen S Madsen, Judith E Kalinyak, and Wendie A Berg.
- National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bldg. 31, Rm. 10A19, 31 Center Dr, Bethesda, MD 20892-2580, USA. mndeepa@gmail.com
- AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011 Apr 1; 196 (4): 971-81.
ObjectiveIn preparation for a multicenter trial of positron emission mammography (PEM) and MRI in women with newly diagnosed cancer, the two purposes of this study were to validate training of breast imagers in standardized interpretation of PEM and to validate performance of the same specialists interpreting MRI.Materials And MethodsA 2-hour didactic module was developed to train Mammography Quality Standards Act-qualified radiologist observers to interpret PEM images, consisting of a sample feature analysis lexicon analogous to BI-RADS and 12 sample cases. Observers were then asked to review separate interpretive skills tasks for PEM (49 breasts, 20 [41%] of which were malignant) and MRI (32 breasts, 11 [34%] of which were malignant), describe findings, and give assessments analogous to BI-RADS (category 1, 2, 3, 4A, 4B, 4C, or 5). Demographic experience variables were collected for 36 observers from 15 sites. Performance against histopathologic truth was determined, and interobserver agreement for classifying features and final assessments was evaluated using kappa statistics.ResultsAcross 36 observers, mean sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) for PEM were 96% (range, 75-100%), 84% (range, 66-97%), and 0.95 (range, 0.82-1.0), respectively. Mean sensitivity, specificity, and AUC for the MRI task were 82% (range, 45-100%), 67% (range, 38-91%), and 0.80 (range, 0.48-0.96), respectively. Interobserver agreement for PEM findings ranged from moderate to substantial, with kappa values of 0.57 for lesion type and 0.63 for final assessments.ConclusionWith minimal training, experienced breast imagers showed high performance in interpreting PEM images. Performance in MRI interpretation by the same observers validated expected clinical practice.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*
,_underline_
or**bold**
. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>
and subscript<sub>text</sub>
. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3.
, hyphens-
or asterisks*
. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
- Images can be included with:
![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
- For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)
inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]
to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote.
.