A Test of Performance of Breast MRI Interpretation in a Multicentre Screening Study

Warren, Ruth, Hayes, Carmel, Pointon, Linda, Hoff, Rebecca, Gilbert, Fiona J., Padhani, Anwar R., Rubin, Caroline, Kaplan, Glenda, Raza, Kauza, Wilkinson, Laura, Hall-Craggs, Margaret, Kessar, Preminda, Rankin, Sheila, Dixon, Adrian K., Walsh, James, Turnbull, Lindsay, Britton, Peter, Sinnatamby, Ruchi, Easton, Doug, Thompson, Deborah, Lakhani, Sunil R., Leach, Martin O. and MARIBS (2006) A Test of Performance of Breast MRI Interpretation in a Multicentre Screening Study. Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 24 7: 917-929.


Author Warren, Ruth
Hayes, Carmel
Pointon, Linda
Hoff, Rebecca
Gilbert, Fiona J.
Padhani, Anwar R.
Rubin, Caroline
Kaplan, Glenda
Raza, Kauza
Wilkinson, Laura
Hall-Craggs, Margaret
Kessar, Preminda
Rankin, Sheila
Dixon, Adrian K.
Walsh, James
Turnbull, Lindsay
Britton, Peter
Sinnatamby, Ruchi
Easton, Doug
Thompson, Deborah
Lakhani, Sunil R.
Leach, Martin O.
MARIBS
Title A Test of Performance of Breast MRI Interpretation in a Multicentre Screening Study
Journal name Magnetic Resonance Imaging   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 0730-725X
Publication date 2006
Sub-type Article (original research)
DOI 10.1016/j.mri.2006.03.004
Volume 24
Issue 7
Start page 917
End page 929
Total pages 13
Editor D. Gore
J. C. Gore
Place of publication New York, U.S.A.
Publisher Elsevier
Collection year 2006
Language eng
Subject C1
321020 Pathology
730108 Cancer and related disorders
110316 Pathology (excl. Oral Pathology)
Abstract Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the consistency and performance of radiologists interpreting breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations. Materials and Methods: Two test sets of eight cases comprising cancers, benign disease, technical problems and parenchymal enhancement were prepared from two manufacturers' equipment (X and Y) and reported by 15 radiologists using the recording form and scoring system of the UK MRI breast screening study [(MAgnetic Resonance Imaging in Breast Screening (MARIBS)]. Variations in assessments of morphology, kinetic scores and diagnosis were measured by assessing intraobserver and interobserver variability and agreement. The sensitivity and specificity of reporting performances was determined using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Results: Intraobserver variation was seen in 13 (27.7%) of 47 of the radiologists' conclusions (four technical and seven pathological differences). Substantial interobserver variation was observed in the scores recorded for morphology, pattern of enhancement, quantification of enhancement and washout pattern. The overall sensitivity of breast MRI was high [88.6%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 77.4-94.7%], combined with a specificity of 69.2% (95% CI 60.5-76.7%). The sensitivities were similar for the two test sets (P=.3), but the specificity was significantly higher for the Manufacturer X dataset (P <.001). ROC curve analysis gave an area under the curve of 0.85 (95% CI 0.79-0.92) Conclusions: Substantial variation in all elements of the scoring system and in the overall diagnostic conclusions was observed between radiologists participating in MARIBS. High overall sensitivity was achieved with moderate specificity. Manufacturer-related differences in specificities possibly occurred because the numerical thresholds set for the scoring system were not optimised for both equipment manufacturers. Scoring systems developed on one equipment software may not be transferable to other manufacturers. (c) 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved
Keyword Radiology, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging
Breast MRI
Quality Control
Reporting Performance
Observer Variability
Data System
Mammography
Agreement
Protocol
Cancer
Risk
Q-Index Code C1

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Article (original research)
Collections: Excellence in Research Australia (ERA) - Collection
2007 Higher Education Research Data Collection
School of Medicine Publications
 
Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 10 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 11 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Access Statistics: 79 Abstract Views  -  Detailed Statistics
Created: Wed, 15 Aug 2007, 07:57:10 EST