Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 6/2012

01-06-2012 | Original Article

Lexicon for standardized interpretation of gamma camera molecular breast imaging: observer agreement and diagnostic accuracy

Authors: Amy Lynn Conners, Carrie B. Hruska, Cindy L. Tortorelli, Robert W. Maxwell, Deborah J. Rhodes, Judy C. Boughey, Wendie A. Berg

Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging | Issue 6/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To determine interobserver agreement and diagnostic accuracy using a lexicon for standardized interpretation of molecular breast imaging (MBI) studies by breast radiologists.

Methods

An MBI lexicon was developed, including descriptors of lesion type, background uptake, and associated findings by a consensus of experts. In an institutional review board-exempted protocol, six breast imaging radiologist observers without prior MBI experience attended a 2-h MBI interpretation training session, including definitions of lexicon terminology, case examples, and ten unknown cases with expert feedback. Following training, each radiologist observer interpreted an independent set of MBI images of 50 breasts, including 20 (40%) with malignancies with a median invasive tumor size of 1.7 cm (range 1.0 to 6.3 cm). The findings were described using the lexicon and each breast was given a final assessment of 1 to 5, paralleling BI-RADS assessment categories. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were determined with core or surgical pathology results or 1-year imaging follow-up as the reference standard. Interobserver agreement for lesion-type classification, lesion and background uptake intensity, and final assessments were determined using Cohen’s kappa.

Results

For the six observers, median sensitivity was 1.0 (range 0.90–1.0), specificity 0.88 (range 0.83–0.97), and AUC 0.94 (range 0.93–0.98). Fair interobserver agreement was shown for background uptake (κ = 0.31). Agreement was substantial for lesion type (κ = 0.79) and non-mass distribution (κ = 0.63), and near-perfect for final assessment (κ = 0.84).

Conclusion

Dedicated breast imaging radiologists, newly trained to interpret MBI with the proposed lexicon, achieved high agreement and diagnostic accuracy.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Rhodes DJ, Hruska CB, Phillips SW, Whaley DH, O'Connor MK. Dedicated dual-head gamma imaging for breast cancer screening in women with mammographically dense breasts. Radiology. 2011;258:106–18.PubMedCrossRef Rhodes DJ, Hruska CB, Phillips SW, Whaley DH, O'Connor MK. Dedicated dual-head gamma imaging for breast cancer screening in women with mammographically dense breasts. Radiology. 2011;258:106–18.PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Hruska CB, Phillips SW, Whaley DH, Rhodes DJ, O'Connor MK. Molecular breast imaging: use of a dual-head dedicated gamma camera to detect small breast tumors. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191:1805–15.PubMedCrossRef Hruska CB, Phillips SW, Whaley DH, Rhodes DJ, O'Connor MK. Molecular breast imaging: use of a dual-head dedicated gamma camera to detect small breast tumors. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191:1805–15.PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Burnside ES, Sickles EA, Bassett LW, Rubin DL, Lee CH, Ikeda DM, et al. The ACR BI-RADS experience: learning from history. J Am Coll Radiol. 2009;6:851–60.PubMedCrossRef Burnside ES, Sickles EA, Bassett LW, Rubin DL, Lee CH, Ikeda DM, et al. The ACR BI-RADS experience: learning from history. J Am Coll Radiol. 2009;6:851–60.PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference D'Orsi CJ, Bassett LW, Berg WA, et al. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, BI-RADS: mammography. 4th ed. Reston: American College of Radiology; 2003. D'Orsi CJ, Bassett LW, Berg WA, et al. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, BI-RADS: mammography. 4th ed. Reston: American College of Radiology; 2003.
5.
go back to reference Berg WA, D'Orsi CJ, Jackson VP, Bassett LW, Beam CA, Lewis RS, et al. 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. 2002;224:871–80.PubMedCrossRef Berg WA, D'Orsi CJ, Jackson VP, Bassett LW, Beam CA, Lewis RS, et al. 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. 2002;224:871–80.PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Mendelson EB, Baum JK, Berg WA, Merritt CRB, Rubin E. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, BI-RADS: ultrasound. 1st ed. Reston: American College of Radiology; 2003. Mendelson EB, Baum JK, Berg WA, Merritt CRB, Rubin E. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, BI-RADS: ultrasound. 1st ed. Reston: American College of Radiology; 2003.
7.
go back to reference Ikeda DM, Hylton NM, Kuhl CK, et al. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, BI-RADS: magnetic resonance imaging. Reston: American College of Radiology; 2003. Ikeda DM, Hylton NM, Kuhl CK, et al. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, BI-RADS: magnetic resonance imaging. Reston: American College of Radiology; 2003.
8.
go back to reference Narayanan D, Madsen KS, Kalinyak JE, Berg WA. Interpretation of positron emission mammography and MRI by experienced breast imaging radiologists: performance and observer reproducibility. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196:971–81.PubMedCrossRef Narayanan D, Madsen KS, Kalinyak JE, Berg WA. Interpretation of positron emission mammography and MRI by experienced breast imaging radiologists: performance and observer reproducibility. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196:971–81.PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Weinmann AL, Hruska CB, O'Connor MK. Design of optimal collimation for dedicated molecular breast imaging systems. Med Phys. 2009;36:845–56.PubMedCrossRef Weinmann AL, Hruska CB, O'Connor MK. Design of optimal collimation for dedicated molecular breast imaging systems. Med Phys. 2009;36:845–56.PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Boughey JC, O'Connor MK, Hruska CB, Neal L, Jakub JW, Degnim AC, et al. Molecular breast imaging in the preoperative surgical workup of women with biopsy proven breast cancer (abstract). Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:S49. Boughey JC, O'Connor MK, Hruska CB, Neal L, Jakub JW, Degnim AC, et al. Molecular breast imaging in the preoperative surgical workup of women with biopsy proven breast cancer (abstract). Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:S49.
11.
go back to reference Rhodes DJ, Hruska CB, Tortorelli CL, Maxwell RW, Conners AL, O'Connor MK. Low-dose molecular breast imaging with Tc-99 m sestamibi for screening in women with dense breasts (abstract). J Nucl Med. 2011;52:671. Rhodes DJ, Hruska CB, Tortorelli CL, Maxwell RW, Conners AL, O'Connor MK. Low-dose molecular breast imaging with Tc-99 m sestamibi for screening in women with dense breasts (abstract). J Nucl Med. 2011;52:671.
12.
go back to reference Crewson PE. Reader agreement studies. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184:1391–7.PubMed Crewson PE. Reader agreement studies. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184:1391–7.PubMed
13.
go back to reference Fleiss JL, Levin BA, Paik MC. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. 3rd ed. Hoboken: Wiley; 2003.CrossRef Fleiss JL, Levin BA, Paik MC. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. 3rd ed. Hoboken: Wiley; 2003.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–74.PubMedCrossRef Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–74.PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Berg WA, Campassi C, Langenberg P, Sexton MJ. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: inter- and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000;174:1769–77.PubMed Berg WA, Campassi C, Langenberg P, Sexton MJ. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: inter- and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000;174:1769–77.PubMed
16.
go back to reference Abdullah N, Mesurolle B, El-Khoury M, Kao E. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System lexicon for US: interobserver agreement for assessment of breast masses. Radiology. 2009;252:665–72.PubMedCrossRef Abdullah N, Mesurolle B, El-Khoury M, Kao E. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System lexicon for US: interobserver agreement for assessment of breast masses. Radiology. 2009;252:665–72.PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Lazarus E, Mainiero MB, Schepps B, Koelliker SL, Livingston LS. BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value. Radiology. 2006;239:385–91.PubMedCrossRef Lazarus E, Mainiero MB, Schepps B, Koelliker SL, Livingston LS. BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value. Radiology. 2006;239:385–91.PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Lee HJ, Kim EK, Kim MJ, Youk JH, Lee JY, Kang DR, et al. Observer variability of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) for breast ultrasound. Eur J Radiol. 2008;65:293–8.PubMedCrossRef Lee HJ, Kim EK, Kim MJ, Youk JH, Lee JY, Kang DR, et al. Observer variability of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) for breast ultrasound. Eur J Radiol. 2008;65:293–8.PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Ikeda DM, Hylton NM, Kinkel K, Hochman MG, Kuhl CK, Kaiser WA, et al. Development, standardization, and testing of a lexicon for reporting contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging studies. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2001;13:889–95.PubMedCrossRef Ikeda DM, Hylton NM, Kinkel K, Hochman MG, Kuhl CK, Kaiser WA, et al. Development, standardization, and testing of a lexicon for reporting contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging studies. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2001;13:889–95.PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Stoutjesdijk MJ, Futterer JJ, Boetes C, van Die LE, Jager G, Barentsz JO. Variability in the description of morphologic and contrast enhancement characteristics of breast lesions on magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol. 2005;40:355–62.PubMedCrossRef Stoutjesdijk MJ, Futterer JJ, Boetes C, van Die LE, Jager G, Barentsz JO. Variability in the description of morphologic and contrast enhancement characteristics of breast lesions on magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol. 2005;40:355–62.PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Baker JA, Kornguth PJ, Floyd Jr CE. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System standardized mammography lexicon: observer variability in lesion description. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996;166:773–8.PubMed Baker JA, Kornguth PJ, Floyd Jr CE. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System standardized mammography lexicon: observer variability in lesion description. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996;166:773–8.PubMed
22.
go back to reference Sickles EA. Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3,184 consecutive cases. Radiology. 1991;179:463–8.PubMed Sickles EA. Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3,184 consecutive cases. Radiology. 1991;179:463–8.PubMed
23.
go back to reference Varas X, Leborgne JH, Leborgne F, Mezzera J, Jaumandreu S. Revisiting the mammographic follow-up of BI-RADS category 3 lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;179:691–5.PubMed Varas X, Leborgne JH, Leborgne F, Mezzera J, Jaumandreu S. Revisiting the mammographic follow-up of BI-RADS category 3 lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;179:691–5.PubMed
24.
go back to reference Vizcaino I, Gadea L, Andreo L, Salas D, Ruiz-Perales F, Cuevas D, et al. Short-term follow-up results in 795 nonpalpable probably benign lesions detected at screening mammography. Radiology. 2001;219:475–83.PubMed Vizcaino I, Gadea L, Andreo L, Salas D, Ruiz-Perales F, Cuevas D, et al. Short-term follow-up results in 795 nonpalpable probably benign lesions detected at screening mammography. Radiology. 2001;219:475–83.PubMed
25.
go back to reference Graf O, Helbich TH, Hopf G, Graf C, Sickles EA. Probably benign breast masses at US: is follow-up an acceptable alternative to biopsy? Radiology. 2007;244:87–93.PubMedCrossRef Graf O, Helbich TH, Hopf G, Graf C, Sickles EA. Probably benign breast masses at US: is follow-up an acceptable alternative to biopsy? Radiology. 2007;244:87–93.PubMedCrossRef
26.
go back to reference Mainiero MB, Goldkamp A, Lazarus E, Livingston L, Koelliker SL, Schepps B, et al. Characterization of breast masses with sonography: can biopsy of some solid masses be deferred? J Ultrasound Med. 2005;24:161–7.PubMed Mainiero MB, Goldkamp A, Lazarus E, Livingston L, Koelliker SL, Schepps B, et al. Characterization of breast masses with sonography: can biopsy of some solid masses be deferred? J Ultrasound Med. 2005;24:161–7.PubMed
27.
go back to reference Raza S, Chikarmane SA, Neilsen SS, Zorn LM, Birdwell RL. BI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 lesions: value of US in management – follow-up and outcome. Radiology. 2008;248:773–81.PubMedCrossRef Raza S, Chikarmane SA, Neilsen SS, Zorn LM, Birdwell RL. BI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 lesions: value of US in management – follow-up and outcome. Radiology. 2008;248:773–81.PubMedCrossRef
28.
go back to reference Eby PR, DeMartini WB, Gutierrez RL, Saini MH, Peacock S, Lehman CD. Characteristics of probably benign breast MRI lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193:861–7.PubMedCrossRef Eby PR, DeMartini WB, Gutierrez RL, Saini MH, Peacock S, Lehman CD. Characteristics of probably benign breast MRI lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193:861–7.PubMedCrossRef
29.
go back to reference Liberman L, Morris EA, Benton CL, Abramson AF, Dershaw DD. Probably benign lesions at breast magnetic resonance imaging: preliminary experience in high-risk women. Cancer. 2003;98:377–88.PubMedCrossRef Liberman L, Morris EA, Benton CL, Abramson AF, Dershaw DD. Probably benign lesions at breast magnetic resonance imaging: preliminary experience in high-risk women. Cancer. 2003;98:377–88.PubMedCrossRef
30.
go back to reference Goldsmith SJ, Parsons W, Guiberteau MJ, Stern LH, Lanzkowsky L, Weigert J, et al. SNM practice guideline for breast scintigraphy with breast-specific gamma-cameras 1.0. J Nucl Med Technol. 2010;38:219–24.PubMedCrossRef Goldsmith SJ, Parsons W, Guiberteau MJ, Stern LH, Lanzkowsky L, Weigert J, et al. SNM practice guideline for breast scintigraphy with breast-specific gamma-cameras 1.0. J Nucl Med Technol. 2010;38:219–24.PubMedCrossRef
31.
go back to reference Hruska CB, O'Connor MK. Quantitation of malignant and benign breast lesions with dual-head molecular breast imaging (abstract). Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) Annual Meeting. Chicago, IL; December 3, 2010. Hruska CB, O'Connor MK. Quantitation of malignant and benign breast lesions with dual-head molecular breast imaging (abstract). Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) Annual Meeting. Chicago, IL; December 3, 2010.
32.
go back to reference Hruska CB, O'Connor MK. Quantification of lesion size, depth, and uptake using a dual-head molecular breast imaging system. Med Phys. 2008;35:1365–76.CrossRef Hruska CB, O'Connor MK. Quantification of lesion size, depth, and uptake using a dual-head molecular breast imaging system. Med Phys. 2008;35:1365–76.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Gur D, Bandos AI, Cohen CS, Hakim CM, Hardesty LA, Ganott MA, et al. The "laboratory" effect: comparing radiologists' performance and variability during prospective clinical and laboratory mammography interpretations. Radiology. 2008;249:47–53.PubMedCrossRef Gur D, Bandos AI, Cohen CS, Hakim CM, Hardesty LA, Ganott MA, et al. The "laboratory" effect: comparing radiologists' performance and variability during prospective clinical and laboratory mammography interpretations. Radiology. 2008;249:47–53.PubMedCrossRef
34.
go back to reference Rutter CM, Taplin S. Assessing mammographers' accuracy. A comparison of clinical and test performance. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:443–50.PubMedCrossRef Rutter CM, Taplin S. Assessing mammographers' accuracy. A comparison of clinical and test performance. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:443–50.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Lexicon for standardized interpretation of gamma camera molecular breast imaging: observer agreement and diagnostic accuracy
Authors
Amy Lynn Conners
Carrie B. Hruska
Cindy L. Tortorelli
Robert W. Maxwell
Deborah J. Rhodes
Judy C. Boughey
Wendie A. Berg
Publication date
01-06-2012
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging / Issue 6/2012
Print ISSN: 1619-7070
Electronic ISSN: 1619-7089
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-011-2054-z

Other articles of this Issue 6/2012

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 6/2012 Go to the issue