Suvarna Sharma¹, Sumit Sharma²*, Chand Teotia³, Ananya Das⁴ and Sameeksha Singh⁴

¹Postgraduate Second Year, Internal Medicine, GSVM Medical College, Kanpur, India ²Professor and Head, Department of ENT, India ³Postgraduate 1st Year, Dr. KNS Memorial Institute of Medical Sciences, Gadia Barabanki, India ⁴Postgraduate Third Year, Dr. KNS Memorial Institute of Medical Sciences, Gadia Barabanki, India

*Corresponding Author: Sumit Sharma, Professor and Head, Postgraduate Second Year, Internal Medicine, GSVM Medical College, Kanpur, India.

Received: December 12, 2024; Published: December 28, 2024

Abstract

Background: Mammography has been proven to be a successful method for identifying early signs of breast cancer. However, their effectiveness is dependent on how their Readers interpret the images. The Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) lexicon was created by the American College of Radiology (ACR) and mammography specialists to standardize mammographic reporting. Terms for breast density, lesion characteristics, or impression have been created. Interpretation of mammograms plays a significant role in the final diagnosis, follow-up, and treatment of breast lesions.

Aim of the Study: To assess breast imaging reporting and data system (BIRADS) agreement with the interpretation in breast le sions description.

Subjects and Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted at the Department of Radiology in Benghazi Medical Center (BMC) with digital mammographic units during January 2018 to March 2019. The study included 200 mammographic images for women aged 40 years and older. The mammographic lesions were categorized using the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI RADS) then the images were evaluated according to the BIRAD to define the degree of agreement between them. The Kappa value was used to assess the degree of agreement.

Results: The study revealed that there was a moderated agreement between Reader 1 and Reader 2 kappa value (K) = 0.42, a mod erate agreement between Reader 1 and Reader 3 kappa value (K) = 0.46, and an agreement between Reader 2 and Reader 3 kappa value (K) = 0.43 was moderate agreement.

Conclusion: BI-RADS is moderately successful in providing a standardized language for physicians to describe lesion morphology. Efforts to reevaluate specific terms.

Keywords: Mammography; BI-RADS; Kappa Value

References

1. Devolli-Disha E., et al. “Comparative Accuracy of mammography and Ultrasound in Women with Breast Symptoms According to Age and Breast Density”. Bosnian Journal of Basic Medical Sciences2 (2009): 131-136.
2. Kim EJ., et al. “Interobserver agreement on the interpretation of automated whole breast ultrasonography”. Ultrasonography (2014).
3. Calas M., et al. “Interobserver concordance in the BI-RADS classification of breast ultrasound exams”. Clinics 2 (2012): 185-189.
4. Lazarus E., et al. “BI-RADS Lexicon for US and Mammography: Interobserver Variability and Positive Predictive Value”. RSNA (2006).
5. Baker JA., et al. “Breast imaging reporting and data system standardized mammography lexicon: observer variability in lesion description”. American Journal of Roentgenology4 (1996): 773-778.
6. American College Of Radiology. Bi-Rads Committee. ACR BI-RADS atlas breast imaging and reporting data system. Reston, Va: American College Of Radiology (2013).
7. The Radiology Assistant : Home. Radiologyassistant.nl (2013).
8. Taori K., et al. “Evaluation of Breast Masses Using Mammography and Sonography as First Line Investigations”. Open Journal of Medical Imaging1 (2013): 40-49.
9. Gonzaga M. “How accurate is ultrasound in evaluating palpable breast masses?” Pan African Medical Journal1 (2011).
10. Boonlikit S. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention12 (2013): 7731-7736.
11. Abdalla FBEA. Application Of Morphometry, Static Dna Ploidy Analysis, And Steroid Receptor Expression In Diagnosis and Prognosis of Libyan Breast Cancer (2012).
12. Skaane P., et al. “Interobserver Variation in the Interpretation of Breast Imaging”. Acta Radiologica4 (1997): 497-502.
13. American Cancer Society. Breast Cancer Facts and Figures 2017-2018. Atlanta: American Cancer Society, Inc. 2017. Cardenosa G. Breast Imaging Companion. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; (2008).
14. Alikhassia A., et al. “Comparison of inter- and intra-observer variability of breast density assessments using the fourth and fifth editions of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System”. European Journal of Radiology Open (2020).
15. Elzagheid A., et al. “Cancer incidence in Western Libya: First results from Tripoli medical center”. Ibnosina Journal of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences2 (2017): 37.
16. Berg WA. “Combined Screening With Ultrasound and Mammography vs Mammography Alone in Women at Elevated Risk of Breast Cancer”. JAMA18 (2008): 2151.
17. Helmut Madjar. “The practice of breast ultrasound techniques, findings, differential diagnosis; with 73 tables”. Stuttgart New York Thieme; (2000).
18. Ikeda DM. “Breast Imaging”. Mosby, editor. (2014).
19. Shaw E. “Atlas of mammography”. Philadelphia [U.A.] Lippincott Williams and Wilkins (2007).
20. Zhao H., et al. “Limitations of mammography in the diagnosis of breast diseases compared with ultrasonography: a single-center retrospective analysis of 274 cases”. European Journal of Medical Research1 (2015).
21. Lehman CD., et al. “Accuracy and Value of Breast Ultrasound for Primary Imaging Evaluation of Symptomatic Women 30- 39 Years of Age”. American Journal of Roentgenology5 (2012): 1169-1177.
22. Elzagheid A., et al. “Cancer incidence in western region of Libya: Report of the year 2009 from tripoli pathology- based cancer registry”. Libyan Journal of Medical Sciences2 (2018): 45.
23. Rumack CM and Levine D. “Diagnostic ultrasound”. 5th ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Elsevier (2018).
24. Ermiah E., et al. “Diagnosis delay in Libyan female breast cancer”. BMC Research Notes1 (2012).
25. Heywang-Koebrunner SH., et al. “Diagnostic breast imaging : mammography, sonography, magnetic resonance imaging and interventional procedures”. Stuttgart; New York: Thieme, Cop (2014).
26. Ribli D., et al. “Detecting and classifying lesions in mammograms with Deep Learning”. Scientific Reports1 (2018).
27. Antonio ALM and Crespi CM. “Predictors of interobserver agreement in breast imaging using the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System”. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment3 (2010): 539-546.
28. Wanasi M., et al. “Agreement of Breast Masses Description using Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS) with Traditional Interpretation of Digital Mammography”. Sapporo Medical Journal1 (2022).
29. Pesce K., et al. “BI-RADS Terminology for Mammography Reports: What Residents Need to Know”. RadioGraphics 2 (2019): 319-320.
30. Kerlikowske K., et al. “Variability and Accuracy in Mammographic Interpretation Using the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System”. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute23 (1998): 1801-1809.
31. Kim SH., et al. “Interpretive Performance and Inter-Observer Agreement on Digital Mammography Test Sets”. Korean Journal of Radiology2 (2019): 218.
32. Adibelli ZH., et al. “Observer Variability of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) Lexicon for Mammography”. Breast Care1 (2010): 3-3.
33. Sprague BL., et al. “Prevalence of Mammographically Dense Breasts in the United States”. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute10 (2014).

Citation

Citation: Fatma Yousuf Ziuo., et al. “Agreement of Breast Lesions Description Using Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS) Lexicon for Mammography". Acta Scientific Otolaryngology 7.1 (2025): 13-17.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2025 Fatma Yousuf Ziuo., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.