Abstract
Background
Elastographpy is a newly developed noninvasive imaging technique that uses ultrasound (US) to evaluate tissue stiffness. The interpretation of the same elastographic images may be variable according to reviewers. Because breast lesions are usually reported according to American College of Radiology Breast Imaging and Data System (ACR BI-RADS) lexicons and final category, we tried to compare observer variability between lexicons and final categorization of US BI-RADS and the elasticity score of US elastography.
Methods
From April 2009 to February 2010, 1356 breast lesions in 1330 patients underwent ultrasound-guided core biopsy. Among them, 63 breast lesions in 55 patients (mean age, 45.7 years; range, 21–79 years) underwent both conventional ultrasound and elastography and were included in this study. Two radiologists independently performed conventional ultrasound and elastography, and another three observers reviewed conventional ultrasound images and elastography videos. Observers independently recorded the elasticity score for a 5-point scoring system proposed by Itoh et al., BI-RADS lexicons and final category using ultrasound BI-RADS. The histopathologic results were obtained and used as the reference standard. Interobserver variability was evaluated.
Results
Of the 63 lesions, 42 (66.7 %) were benign, and 21 (33.3 %) were malignant. The highest value of concordance among all variables was achieved for the elasticity score (k = 0.59), followed by shape (k = 0.54), final category (k = 0.48), posterior acoustic features (k = 0.44), echogenecity and orientation (k = 0.43). The least concordances were margin (k = 0.26), lesion boundary (k = 0.29) and calcification (k = 0.3).
Conclusion
Elasticity score showed a higher level of interobserver agreement for the diagnosis of breast lesions than BI-RADS lexicons and final category.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Itoh A, Ueno E, Tohno E, Kamma H, Takahashi H, Shiina T, et al. Breast disease: clinical application of US elastography for diagnosis. Radiology. 2006;239:341–50.
Athanasiou A, Tardivon A, Tanter M, Sigal-Zafranii B, Bercoff J, Deffieux T, et al. Breast lesions: quantitative elastography with supersonic shear imaging-preminimary results. Radiology. 2010;256:297–303.
Chang JM, Moon WK, Cho N, Yi A, Koo HR, Han W, et al. Clinical application of shear wave elastography (SWE) in the diagnosis of benign and malignant breast disease. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;129:89–97.
Ueno E, Umemoto T, Bando H, Tohno E, Waki K, Matsumura T. New quantitative method in breast elastography: fat-lesion ratio (FLR) [abstract]. 4th ed. In: Proceedings of the Radiological Society of North America Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting. Oak Brook: Radiological Society of North America; 2007. p. 697.
Zhi H, Xiao XY, Yang JY, Wen YL, Ou B, Luo BM, et al. Semi-quantitating stiffness of breast solid lesions in ultrasonic elastography. Acad Radiol. 2008;15:1347–53.
Cho N, Moon WK, Kim HY, Chang JM, Park SH, Lyou CY. Sonoelastographic strain index for differentiation of benign and malignant nonpalpable breast masses. J Ultrasound Med. 2010;29:1–7.
American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system-Ultrasound, Breast imaging atlas. 4th ed. Reston: VA American College of Radiology; 2003.
Fleiss JL. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley; 1981.
Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for normal scales. Educ Psychol Meas. 1960;20:37–46.
Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–74.
Calas MJG, Almeida RM, Gutfilen B, Pereira WCA. Intraobserver interpretation of breast ultrasonography following the BI-RADS classification. Eur J Radiol. 2010;74:525–8.
Park CS, Lee JH, Yim JW, Kang BJ, Kim KS, Jung JI, et al. Observer agreement using the ACR Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS)-Ultrasound, First Edition (2003). Kor J Radiol. 2007;8:397–401.
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.
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. European J Radiol. 2008;65:293–8.
Fleury EFC, Fleury JCV, Piato S, Roverda D. New elastographic classification of breast lesions during and after compression. Diagn Invterv Radiol. 2009;15:96–103.
Zhi H, Ou B, Luo BM, Feng X, Wen YL, Yang HY. Comparison of ultrasound elastography, mammography, and sonography in the diagnosis of solid breast lesions. J Ultrasound Med. 2007;26:807–15.
Baker JA, Soo MS, Breast US. Assessment of technical quality and image interpretation. Radiology. 2002;223:229–38.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
About this article
Cite this article
Park, C.S., Kim, S.H., Jung, N.Y. et al. Interobserver variability of ultrasound elastography and the ultrasound BI-RADS lexicon of breast lesions. Breast Cancer 22, 153–160 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-013-0465-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-013-0465-3