|
1
|
Pesapane F, Nicosia L, Tantrige P, Schiaffino S, Liguori A, Montesano M, Bozzini A, Rotili A, Cellina M, Orsi M, Penco S, Pizzamiglio M, Carrafiello G, Cassano E. Inter-reader agreement of breast magnetic resonance imaging and contrast-enhanced mammography in breast cancer diagnosis: a multi-reader retrospective study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2023; 202:451-459. [PMID: 37747580 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-023-07093-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/08/2023] [Accepted: 08/11/2023] [Indexed: 09/26/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) are nowadays used in breast imaging but studies about their inter-reader agreement are lacking. Therefore, we compared the inter-reader agreement of CEM and MRI in breast cancer diagnosis in the same patients. METHODS Breast MRI and CEM exams performed in a single center (09/2020-09/2021) for an IRB-approved study were retrospectively and independently evaluated by four radiologists of two different centers with different levels of experience who were blinded to the clinical and other imaging data. The reference standard was the histological diagnosis or at least 1-year negative imaging follow-up. Inter-reader agreement was examined using Cohen's and Fleiss' kappa (κ) statistics and compared with the Wald test. RESULTS Of the 750 patients, 395 met inclusion criteria (44.5 ± 14 years old), with 752 breasts available for CEM and MRI. Overall agreement was moderate (κ = 0.60) for MRI and substantial (κ = 0.74) for CEM. For expert readers, the agreement was substantial (κ = 0.77) for MRI and almost perfect (κ = 0.82) for CEM; for non-expert readers was fair (κ = 0.39); and for MRI and moderate (κ = 0.57) for CEM. Pairwise agreement between expert readers and non-expert readers was moderate (κ = 0.50) for breast MRI and substantial (κ = 0.74) for CEM and it showed a statistically superior agreement of the expert over the non-expert readers only for MRI (p = 0.011) and not for CEM (p = 0.062). CONCLUSIONS The agreement of CEM was superior to that of MRI (p = 0.012), including for both expert (p = 0.031) and non-expert readers (p = 0.005).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Filippo Pesapane
- Breast Imaging Division, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
| | - Luca Nicosia
- Breast Imaging Division, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Priyan Tantrige
- Department of Radiology, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Simone Schiaffino
- Imaging Institute of Southern Switzerland (IIMSI), Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale (EOC), 6900, Lugano, Switzerland
| | - Alessandro Liguori
- Department of Radiology, IRCCS Foundation Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, 20122, Milan, Italy
| | - Marta Montesano
- Department of Radiology, IRCCS Foundation Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, 20122, Milan, Italy
| | - Anna Bozzini
- Breast Imaging Division, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Anna Rotili
- Breast Imaging Division, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Michaela Cellina
- Department of Radiology, Fatebenefratelli Hospital, ASST Fatebenefratelli Sacco, 20131, Milan, Italy
| | - Marcello Orsi
- Department of Radiology, Fatebenefratelli Hospital, ASST Fatebenefratelli Sacco, 20131, Milan, Italy
| | - Silvia Penco
- Breast Imaging Division, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Maria Pizzamiglio
- Breast Imaging Division, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Gianpaolo Carrafiello
- Department of Radiology, IRCCS Foundation Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, 20122, Milan, Italy
- Department of Health Sciences, University of Milan, 20122, Milan, Italy
| | - Enrico Cassano
- Breast Imaging Division, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
|
2
|
Pesapane F, Rotili A, Penco S, Montesano M, Agazzi GM, Dominelli V, Trentin C, Pizzamiglio M, Cassano E. Inter-Reader Agreement of Diffusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Breast Cancer Detection: A Multi-Reader Retrospective Study. Cancers (Basel) 2021; 13:cancers13081978. [PMID: 33924033 PMCID: PMC8073591 DOI: 10.3390/cancers13081978] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/03/2021] [Revised: 04/12/2021] [Accepted: 04/16/2021] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE In order to evaluate the use of un-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for detecting breast cancer, we evaluated the accuracy and the agreement of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) through the inter-reader reproducibility between expert and non-expert readers. MATERIAL AND METHODS Consecutive breast MRI performed in a single centre were retrospectively evaluated by four radiologists with different levels of experience. The per-breast standard of reference was the histological diagnosis from needle biopsy or surgical excision, or at least one-year negative follow-up on imaging. The agreement across readers (by inter-reader reproducibility) was examined for each breast examined using Cohen's and Fleiss' kappa (κ) statistics. The Wald test was used to test the difference in inter-reader agreement between expert and non-expert readers. RESULTS Of 1131 examinations, according to our inclusion and exclusion criteria, 382 women were included (49.5 ± 12 years old), 40 of them with unilateral mastectomy, totaling 724 breasts. Overall inter-reader reproducibility was substantial (κ = 0.74) for expert readers and poor (κ = 0.37) for non- expert readers. Pairwise agreement between expert readers and non-expert readers was moderate (κ = 0.60) and showed a statistically superior agreement of the expert readers over the non-expert readers (p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS DWI showed substantial inter-reader reproducibility among expert-level readers. Pairwise comparison showed superior agreement of the expert readers over the non-expert readers, with the expert readers having higher inter-reader reproducibility than the non-expert readers. These findings open new perspectives for prospective studies investigating the actual role of DWI as a stand-alone method for un-enhanced breast MRI.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Filippo Pesapane
- Radiology Department, Breast Imaging Division, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20141 Milan, Italy; (A.R.); (S.P.); (M.M.); (V.D.); (C.T.); (M.P.); (E.C.)
- Correspondence:
| | - Anna Rotili
- Radiology Department, Breast Imaging Division, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20141 Milan, Italy; (A.R.); (S.P.); (M.M.); (V.D.); (C.T.); (M.P.); (E.C.)
| | - Silvia Penco
- Radiology Department, Breast Imaging Division, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20141 Milan, Italy; (A.R.); (S.P.); (M.M.); (V.D.); (C.T.); (M.P.); (E.C.)
| | - Marta Montesano
- Radiology Department, Breast Imaging Division, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20141 Milan, Italy; (A.R.); (S.P.); (M.M.); (V.D.); (C.T.); (M.P.); (E.C.)
| | | | - Valeria Dominelli
- Radiology Department, Breast Imaging Division, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20141 Milan, Italy; (A.R.); (S.P.); (M.M.); (V.D.); (C.T.); (M.P.); (E.C.)
| | - Chiara Trentin
- Radiology Department, Breast Imaging Division, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20141 Milan, Italy; (A.R.); (S.P.); (M.M.); (V.D.); (C.T.); (M.P.); (E.C.)
| | - Maria Pizzamiglio
- Radiology Department, Breast Imaging Division, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20141 Milan, Italy; (A.R.); (S.P.); (M.M.); (V.D.); (C.T.); (M.P.); (E.C.)
| | - Enrico Cassano
- Radiology Department, Breast Imaging Division, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20141 Milan, Italy; (A.R.); (S.P.); (M.M.); (V.D.); (C.T.); (M.P.); (E.C.)
| |
Collapse
|