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?
Authors Hu Y, Mei J, Jiang X, Gu R, Liu F, Yang Y, Wang H, Shen S, Jia H, Liu Q, Gong C
Received 16 December 2018
Accepted for publication 22 March 2019
Published 22 May 2019 Volume 2019:11 Pages 4607—4615
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single-blind
Peer reviewers approved by Dr Amy Norman
Peer reviewer comments 3
Editor who approved publication: Dr Beicheng Sun
Yue Hu,1,2,* Jingsi Mei,1,2,* Xiaofang Jiang,1,2 Ran Gu,1,2 Fengtao Liu,1,2 Yaping Yang,1,2 Hongli Wang,1,2 Shiyu Shen,1,2 Haixia Jia,3 Qiang Liu,1,2 Chang Gong1,2
1Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Malignant Tumor Epigenetics and Gene Regulation; 2Breast Tumor Center, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University; 3Department of Breast Surgery, Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, People’s Republic of China
*These authors contributed equally to this work
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.
Keywords: Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, ultrasonography, diagnosis, real-time scanning
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. 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.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]