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。

IF 1.7 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Journal of Medical Imaging Pub Date : 2025-09-01 Epub Date: 2025-06-18 DOI:10.1117/1.JMI.12.5.051806
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:我们的目的是评估数字乳房x线摄影(DM)和对比增强光谱乳房x线摄影(CESM)在评估乳腺成像报告和数据系统(BI-RADS)分级方面的一致性。方法:该回顾性研究纳入了2019年1月至2021年2月期间招募的326例患者。研究方案已在开放科学框架平台上预先注册。两位放射科专家解释了CESM和DM的结果。病理数据用于放射学上可疑或恶性病变,而随访被认为是良性病变和无病变乳房的金标准。结果:对于设备内一致性,两种成像方式显示“几乎完美”的一致性,这表明不同的放射科医生对相同的图像报告相同的BI-RADS评分。尽管显示了相似的解释,配对t检验显示CESM与DM的一致性显著更高(p 0.001)。基于侧面或视图的亚分组在两种成像方式中没有显示出相当大的差异。在设备间协议方面,也实现了“近乎完美”的协议。然而,对于已证实的恶性病变,CESM的BI-RADS评分总体较高,而对于良性或正常乳房,BI-RADS评分较低,这表明CESM的BI-RADS分类比DM更精确。结论:我们的研究结果表明,读者对从不同角度的乳房图像中识别DM和CESM的发现有强烈的共识。此外,这表明CESM与DM相比同样精确,可以作为临床中心的替代方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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 t -test showed significantly higher agreement for CESM compared with DM ( p < 0.001 ). 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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Medical Imaging
Journal of Medical Imaging RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
4.20%
发文量
0
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信