Background echotexture classification in breast ultrasound: inter-observer agreement study

Abstract

Background

According to the American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS), background echotexture in breast ultrasound (US) can be categorized as homogeneous or heterogeneous.

Purpose

To prospectively evaluate the inter-observer agreement of a four-category classification in background echotexture assessments of breast US and to determine whether background echotexture is related to breast cancer risk factors, including mammography density.

Material and Methods

Thirty-eight healthy women (age range, 25–72) were recruited. Eleven radiologists performed breast US on all participants and classified each background echotexture into four categories (homogeneous, mild, moderate, and marked heterogeneous). The inter-observer agreement in the assessments was measured using kappa statistics (к). The association between background echotexture and breast cancer risk factors, including mammographic density, menopausal status, and parity, were evaluated using Spearman’s correlation coefficient (ρ) and multiple linear regression analysis.

Results

There was moderate inter-observer agreement between the radiologists for the four categories of background echotexture (average к = 0.45). Heterogeneity of the background echotexture was positively correlated with mammographic density in both pre- and postmenopausal women (premenopausal, ρ = 0.42, P < 0.0001; postmenopausal, ρ = 0.56, P < 0.0001). Multiple linear regression analysis revealed that mammographic density and parity were significantly associated with background echotexture.

Conclusion

Background echotexture assessment of breast US using a four-category classification showed moderate inter-observer agreement, and more heterogeneous background echotexture was associated with denser breasts and lower parity.

Keywords

Breast ultrasonography mammography background echotexture density BI-RADS

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Mandelson

Oestreicher

Porter

et al.

Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000; 92: 1081–1087.

Buist

Porter

Lehman

et al.

Factors contributing to mammography failure in women aged 40–49 years. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004; 96: 1432–1440.

Sprague

Stout

Schechter

et al.

Benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts. Ann Intern Med 2015; 162: 157–166.

Berg

Bandos

Mendelson

et al.

Ultrasound as the primary screening test for breast cancer: analysis from ACRIN 6666. J Natl Cancer Inst 2015; 108: pii: djv367–pii: djv367.

Berg

Blume

Cormack

et al.

Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 2008; 299: 2151–2163.

Ohuchi

Suzuki

Sobue

et al.

Sensitivity and specificity of mammography and adjunctive ultrasonography to screen for breast cancer in the Japan Strategic Anti-cancer Randomized Trial (J-START): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2016; 387: 341–348.

Boyd

Guo

Martin

et al.

Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2007; 356: 227–236.

McCormack

dos Santos Silva

. Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006; 15: 1159–1169.

Mendelson EB, Bohm-Velez M, Berg WA, et al. ACR BI-RADS Ultrasound. In: ACR BI-RADS Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2013.

10.

Blend

Rideout

Kaizer

et al.

Parenchymal patterns of the breast defined by real time ultrasound. Eur J Cancer Prev 1995; 4: 293–298.

11.

Glide

Duric

Littrup

. Novel approach to evaluating breast density utilizing ultrasound tomography. Med Phys 2007; 34: 744–753.

12.

Berg

Blume

Cormack

et al.

Operator dependence of physician-performed whole-breast US: lesion detection and characterization. Radiology 2006; 241: 355–365.

13.

Kim

Moon

Kim

et al.

Ultrasonographic assessment of breast density. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2013; 138: 851–859.

14.

Sickles EA, D’Orsi CJ, Bassett LW, et al. ACR BI-RADS Mammography. In: ACR BI-RADS Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2013.

15.

Kang

Lee

Koh

et al.

New MRI grading system for the cervical canal stenosis. Am J Roentgenol 2011; 197: W134–140.

16.

Ooms

Zonderland

Eijkemans

et al.

Mammography: interobserver variability in breast density assessment. Breast 2007; 16: 568–576.

17.

Ciatto

Houssami

Apruzzese

et al.

Categorizing breast mammographic density: intra- and interobserver reproducibility of BI-RADS density categories. Breast 2005; 14: 269–275.

18.

Kerlikowske

Grady

Barclay

et al.

Variability and accuracy in mammographic interpretation using the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998; 90: 1801–1809.

19.

Melsaether

McDermott

Gupta

et al.

Inter- and intrareader agreement for categorization of background parenchymal enhancement at baseline and after training. Am J Roentgenol 2014; 203: 209–215.

20.

Lee

Choi

et al.

Background enhancement in breast MR: correlation with breast density in mammography and background echotexture in ultrasound. Eur J Radiol 2011; 80: 719–723.

21.

Stavros

. Breast ultrasound, Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2004.

22.

Schneck

Lehman

. Sonographic anatomy of the breast. Semin Ultrasound 1982; 3: 13–33.

23.

Howard

Gusterson

. Human breast development. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia 2000; 5: 119–137.

24.

Song

Cho

Chu

et al.

Undiagnosed breast cancer: features at supplemental screening US. Radiology 2015; 277: 372–380.

25.

Bae

Moon

Chang

et al.

Breast cancer detected with screening US: reasons for nondetection at mammography. Radiology 2014; 270: 369–377.

26.

Cha

Moon

Cho

et al.

Differentiation of benign from malignant solid breast masses: conventional US versus spatial compound imaging. Radiology 2005; 237: 841–846.

27.

Cha

Moon

Cho

et al.

Characterization of benign and malignant solid breast masses: comparison of conventional US and tissue harmonic Imaging. Radiology 2007; 242: 63–69.

28.

Moon

Shen

Huang

et al.

Computer-aided diagnosis for the classification of breast masses in automated whole breast ultrasound images. Ultrasound Med Biol 2011; 37: 539–548.

29.

Chang

Cha

Park

et al.

Automated breast ultrasound system (ABUS): reproducibility of mass localization, size measurement, and characterization on serial examinations. Acta Radiol 2015; 56: 1163–1170.

30.

Chang

Hou

et al.

Quantitative analysis of breast echotexture patterns in automated breast ultrasound images. Med Phys 2015; 42: 4566–4578.

31.

Shin

Kim

Cha

et al.

Automated ultrasound of the breast for diagnosis: interobserver agreement on lesion detection and characterization. Am J Roentgenol 2011; 197: 747–754.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.22 MB