Alisa Mohebbi, Ali Abdi, Saeed Mohammadzadeh, Mohammad Mirza-Aghazadeh-Attari, Ali Abbasian Ardakani, Afshin Mohammadi
{"title":"对比增强光谱乳房x线摄影显示更好的阅读器间重复性比数字乳房x线摄影筛查乳腺癌患者。","authors":"Alisa Mohebbi, Ali Abdi, Saeed Mohammadzadeh, Mohammad Mirza-Aghazadeh-Attari, Ali Abbasian Ardakani, Afshin Mohammadi","doi":"10.1117/1.JMI.12.5.051806","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Our purpose is to assess the inter-rater agreement between digital mammography (DM) and contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) in evaluating the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) grading.</p><p><strong>Approach: </strong>This retrospective study included 326 patients recruited between January 2019 and February 2021. The study protocol was pre-registered on the Open Science Framework platform. Two expert radiologists interpreted the CESM and DM findings. Pathological data are used for radiologically suspicious or malignant-appearing lesions, whereas follow-up was considered the gold standard for benign-appearing lesions and breasts without lesions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For intra-device agreement, both imaging modalities showed \"almost perfect\" agreement, indicating that different radiologists are expected to report the same BI-RADS score for the same image. Despite showing a similar interpretation, a paired <math><mrow><mi>t</mi></mrow> </math> -test showed significantly higher agreement for CESM compared with DM ( <math><mrow><mi>p</mi> <mo><</mo> <mn>0.001</mn></mrow> </math> ). Subgrouping based on the side or view did not show a considerable difference for both imaging modalities. For inter-device agreement, \"almost perfect\" agreement was also achieved. However, for proven malignant lesions, an overall higher BI-RADS score was achieved for CESM, whereas for benign or normal breasts, a lower BI-RADS score was reported, indicating a more precise BI-RADS classification for CESM compared with DM.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings demonstrated strong agreement among readers regarding the identification of DM and CESM findings in breast images from various views. Moreover, it indicates that CESM is equally precise compared with DM and can be used as an alternative in clinical centers.</p>","PeriodicalId":47707,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Imaging","volume":"12 5","pages":"051806"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12175086/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography demonstrates better inter-reader repeatability than digital mammography for screening breast cancer patients.\",\"authors\":\"Alisa Mohebbi, Ali Abdi, Saeed Mohammadzadeh, Mohammad Mirza-Aghazadeh-Attari, Ali Abbasian Ardakani, Afshin Mohammadi\",\"doi\":\"10.1117/1.JMI.12.5.051806\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Our purpose is to assess the inter-rater agreement between digital mammography (DM) and contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) in evaluating the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) grading.</p><p><strong>Approach: </strong>This retrospective study included 326 patients recruited between January 2019 and February 2021. The study protocol was pre-registered on the Open Science Framework platform. Two expert radiologists interpreted the CESM and DM findings. Pathological data are used for radiologically suspicious or malignant-appearing lesions, whereas follow-up was considered the gold standard for benign-appearing lesions and breasts without lesions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For intra-device agreement, both imaging modalities showed \\\"almost perfect\\\" agreement, indicating that different radiologists are expected to report the same BI-RADS score for the same image. Despite showing a similar interpretation, a paired <math><mrow><mi>t</mi></mrow> </math> -test showed significantly higher agreement for CESM compared with DM ( <math><mrow><mi>p</mi> <mo><</mo> <mn>0.001</mn></mrow> </math> ). Subgrouping based on the side or view did not show a considerable difference for both imaging modalities. For inter-device agreement, \\\"almost perfect\\\" agreement was also achieved. However, for proven malignant lesions, an overall higher BI-RADS score was achieved for CESM, whereas for benign or normal breasts, a lower BI-RADS score was reported, indicating a more precise BI-RADS classification for CESM compared with DM.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings demonstrated strong agreement among readers regarding the identification of DM and CESM findings in breast images from various views. Moreover, it indicates that CESM is equally precise compared with DM and can be used as an alternative in clinical centers.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47707,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Medical Imaging\",\"volume\":\"12 5\",\"pages\":\"051806\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12175086/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Medical Imaging\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JMI.12.5.051806\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/6/18 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JMI.12.5.051806","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography demonstrates better inter-reader repeatability than digital mammography for screening breast cancer patients.
Purpose: Our purpose is to assess the inter-rater agreement between digital mammography (DM) and contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) in evaluating the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) grading.
Approach: This retrospective study included 326 patients recruited between January 2019 and February 2021. The study protocol was pre-registered on the Open Science Framework platform. Two expert radiologists interpreted the CESM and DM findings. Pathological data are used for radiologically suspicious or malignant-appearing lesions, whereas follow-up was considered the gold standard for benign-appearing lesions and breasts without lesions.
Results: For intra-device agreement, both imaging modalities showed "almost perfect" agreement, indicating that different radiologists are expected to report the same BI-RADS score for the same image. Despite showing a similar interpretation, a paired -test showed significantly higher agreement for CESM compared with DM ( ). Subgrouping based on the side or view did not show a considerable difference for both imaging modalities. For inter-device agreement, "almost perfect" agreement was also achieved. However, for proven malignant lesions, an overall higher BI-RADS score was achieved for CESM, whereas for benign or normal breasts, a lower BI-RADS score was reported, indicating a more precise BI-RADS classification for CESM compared with DM.
Conclusions: Our findings demonstrated strong agreement among readers regarding the identification of DM and CESM findings in breast images from various views. Moreover, it indicates that CESM is equally precise compared with DM and can be used as an alternative in clinical centers.
期刊介绍:
JMI covers fundamental and translational research, as well as applications, focused on medical imaging, which continue to yield physical and biomedical advancements in the early detection, diagnostics, and therapy of disease as well as in the understanding of normal. The scope of JMI includes: Imaging physics, Tomographic reconstruction algorithms (such as those in CT and MRI), Image processing and deep learning, Computer-aided diagnosis and quantitative image analysis, Visualization and modeling, Picture archiving and communications systems (PACS), Image perception and observer performance, Technology assessment, Ultrasonic imaging, Image-guided procedures, Digital pathology, Biomedical applications of biomedical imaging. JMI allows for the peer-reviewed communication and archiving of scientific developments, translational and clinical applications, reviews, and recommendations for the field.