Misclassification of breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) mammographic density and implications for breast density reporting legislation

Charlotte C. Gard, Erin J. Aiello Bowles, Diana L Miglioretti, Stephen H. Taplin, Carolyn M. Rutter

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

39 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

USA states have begun legislating mammographic breast density reporting to women, requiring that women undergoing screening mammography who have dense breast tissue (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System [BI-RADS] density c or d) receive written notification of their breast density; however, the impact that misclassification of breast density will have on this reporting remains unclear. The aim of this study was to assess reproducibility of the four-category BI-RADS density measure and examine its relationship with a continuous measure of percent density. We enrolled 19 radiologists, experienced in breast imaging, from a single integrated health care system. Radiologists interpreted 341 screening mammograms at two points in time 6 months apart. We assessed intra- and interobserver agreement in radiologists'; interpretations of BI-RADS density and explored whether agreement depended upon radiologist characteristics. We examined the relationship between BI-RADS density and percent density in a subset of 282 examinations. Intraradiologist agreement was moderate to substantial, with kappa varying across radiologists from 0.50 to 0.81 (mean = 0.69, 95% CI [0.63, 0.73]). Intraradiologist agreement was higher for radiologists with ≥10 years experience interpreting mammograms (difference in mean kappa = 0.10, 95% CI [0.01, 0.24]). Interradiologist agreement varied widely across radiologist pairs from slight to substantial, with kappa ranging from 0.02 to 0.72 (mean = 0.46, 95% CI [0.36, 0.55]). Of 145 examinations interpreted as nondense (BI-RADS density a or b) by the majority of radiologists, 82.8% were interpreted as dense (BI-RADS density c or d) by at least one radiologist. Of 187 examinations interpreted as dense by the majority of radiologists, 47.1% were interpreted as nondense by at least one radiologist. While the examinations of almost half of the women in our study were interpreted clinically as having BI-RADS density c or d, only about 10% of examinations had percent density >50%. Our results suggest that breast density reporting based on a single BI-RADS density interpretation may be misleading due to high interradiologist variability and a lack of correspondence between BI-RADS density and percent density.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)481-489
Number of pages9
JournalBreast Journal
Volume21
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2015

Fingerprint

Legislation
Information Systems
Breast
Breast Density
Radiologists
Integrated Delivery of Health Care
Mammography

Keywords

  • BI-RADS density
  • breast density reporting legislation
  • intra- and interradiologist agreement
  • misclassification
  • percent density

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Internal Medicine
  • Oncology
  • Surgery

Cite this

Misclassification of breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) mammographic density and implications for breast density reporting legislation. / Gard, Charlotte C.; Aiello Bowles, Erin J.; Miglioretti, Diana L; Taplin, Stephen H.; Rutter, Carolyn M.

In: Breast Journal, Vol. 21, No. 5, 01.09.2015, p. 481-489.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Gard, Charlotte C. ; Aiello Bowles, Erin J. ; Miglioretti, Diana L ; Taplin, Stephen H. ; Rutter, Carolyn M. / Misclassification of breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) mammographic density and implications for breast density reporting legislation. In: Breast Journal. 2015 ; Vol. 21, No. 5. pp. 481-489.
@article{a9a77529a14f48eb8b33a704e8f69dfb,
title = "Misclassification of breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) mammographic density and implications for breast density reporting legislation",
abstract = "USA states have begun legislating mammographic breast density reporting to women, requiring that women undergoing screening mammography who have dense breast tissue (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System [BI-RADS] density c or d) receive written notification of their breast density; however, the impact that misclassification of breast density will have on this reporting remains unclear. The aim of this study was to assess reproducibility of the four-category BI-RADS density measure and examine its relationship with a continuous measure of percent density. We enrolled 19 radiologists, experienced in breast imaging, from a single integrated health care system. Radiologists interpreted 341 screening mammograms at two points in time 6 months apart. We assessed intra- and interobserver agreement in radiologists'; interpretations of BI-RADS density and explored whether agreement depended upon radiologist characteristics. We examined the relationship between BI-RADS density and percent density in a subset of 282 examinations. Intraradiologist agreement was moderate to substantial, with kappa varying across radiologists from 0.50 to 0.81 (mean = 0.69, 95{\%} CI [0.63, 0.73]). Intraradiologist agreement was higher for radiologists with ≥10 years experience interpreting mammograms (difference in mean kappa = 0.10, 95{\%} CI [0.01, 0.24]). Interradiologist agreement varied widely across radiologist pairs from slight to substantial, with kappa ranging from 0.02 to 0.72 (mean = 0.46, 95{\%} CI [0.36, 0.55]). Of 145 examinations interpreted as nondense (BI-RADS density a or b) by the majority of radiologists, 82.8{\%} were interpreted as dense (BI-RADS density c or d) by at least one radiologist. Of 187 examinations interpreted as dense by the majority of radiologists, 47.1{\%} were interpreted as nondense by at least one radiologist. While the examinations of almost half of the women in our study were interpreted clinically as having BI-RADS density c or d, only about 10{\%} of examinations had percent density >50{\%}. Our results suggest that breast density reporting based on a single BI-RADS density interpretation may be misleading due to high interradiologist variability and a lack of correspondence between BI-RADS density and percent density.",
keywords = "BI-RADS density, breast density reporting legislation, intra- and interradiologist agreement, misclassification, percent density",
author = "Gard, {Charlotte C.} and {Aiello Bowles}, {Erin J.} and Miglioretti, {Diana L} and Taplin, {Stephen H.} and Rutter, {Carolyn M.}",
year = "2015",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/tbj.12443",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "21",
pages = "481--489",
journal = "Breast Journal",
issn = "1075-122X",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Misclassification of breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) mammographic density and implications for breast density reporting legislation

AU - Gard, Charlotte C.

AU - Aiello Bowles, Erin J.

AU - Miglioretti, Diana L

AU - Taplin, Stephen H.

AU - Rutter, Carolyn M.

PY - 2015/9/1

Y1 - 2015/9/1

N2 - USA states have begun legislating mammographic breast density reporting to women, requiring that women undergoing screening mammography who have dense breast tissue (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System [BI-RADS] density c or d) receive written notification of their breast density; however, the impact that misclassification of breast density will have on this reporting remains unclear. The aim of this study was to assess reproducibility of the four-category BI-RADS density measure and examine its relationship with a continuous measure of percent density. We enrolled 19 radiologists, experienced in breast imaging, from a single integrated health care system. Radiologists interpreted 341 screening mammograms at two points in time 6 months apart. We assessed intra- and interobserver agreement in radiologists'; interpretations of BI-RADS density and explored whether agreement depended upon radiologist characteristics. We examined the relationship between BI-RADS density and percent density in a subset of 282 examinations. Intraradiologist agreement was moderate to substantial, with kappa varying across radiologists from 0.50 to 0.81 (mean = 0.69, 95% CI [0.63, 0.73]). Intraradiologist agreement was higher for radiologists with ≥10 years experience interpreting mammograms (difference in mean kappa = 0.10, 95% CI [0.01, 0.24]). Interradiologist agreement varied widely across radiologist pairs from slight to substantial, with kappa ranging from 0.02 to 0.72 (mean = 0.46, 95% CI [0.36, 0.55]). Of 145 examinations interpreted as nondense (BI-RADS density a or b) by the majority of radiologists, 82.8% were interpreted as dense (BI-RADS density c or d) by at least one radiologist. Of 187 examinations interpreted as dense by the majority of radiologists, 47.1% were interpreted as nondense by at least one radiologist. While the examinations of almost half of the women in our study were interpreted clinically as having BI-RADS density c or d, only about 10% of examinations had percent density >50%. Our results suggest that breast density reporting based on a single BI-RADS density interpretation may be misleading due to high interradiologist variability and a lack of correspondence between BI-RADS density and percent density.

AB - USA states have begun legislating mammographic breast density reporting to women, requiring that women undergoing screening mammography who have dense breast tissue (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System [BI-RADS] density c or d) receive written notification of their breast density; however, the impact that misclassification of breast density will have on this reporting remains unclear. The aim of this study was to assess reproducibility of the four-category BI-RADS density measure and examine its relationship with a continuous measure of percent density. We enrolled 19 radiologists, experienced in breast imaging, from a single integrated health care system. Radiologists interpreted 341 screening mammograms at two points in time 6 months apart. We assessed intra- and interobserver agreement in radiologists'; interpretations of BI-RADS density and explored whether agreement depended upon radiologist characteristics. We examined the relationship between BI-RADS density and percent density in a subset of 282 examinations. Intraradiologist agreement was moderate to substantial, with kappa varying across radiologists from 0.50 to 0.81 (mean = 0.69, 95% CI [0.63, 0.73]). Intraradiologist agreement was higher for radiologists with ≥10 years experience interpreting mammograms (difference in mean kappa = 0.10, 95% CI [0.01, 0.24]). Interradiologist agreement varied widely across radiologist pairs from slight to substantial, with kappa ranging from 0.02 to 0.72 (mean = 0.46, 95% CI [0.36, 0.55]). Of 145 examinations interpreted as nondense (BI-RADS density a or b) by the majority of radiologists, 82.8% were interpreted as dense (BI-RADS density c or d) by at least one radiologist. Of 187 examinations interpreted as dense by the majority of radiologists, 47.1% were interpreted as nondense by at least one radiologist. While the examinations of almost half of the women in our study were interpreted clinically as having BI-RADS density c or d, only about 10% of examinations had percent density >50%. Our results suggest that breast density reporting based on a single BI-RADS density interpretation may be misleading due to high interradiologist variability and a lack of correspondence between BI-RADS density and percent density.

KW - BI-RADS density

KW - breast density reporting legislation

KW - intra- and interradiologist agreement

KW - misclassification

KW - percent density

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84940725139&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84940725139&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/tbj.12443

DO - 10.1111/tbj.12443

M3 - Article

C2 - 26133090

AN - SCOPUS:84940725139

VL - 21

SP - 481

EP - 489

JO - Breast Journal

JF - Breast Journal

SN - 1075-122X

IS - 5

ER -