Nonpalpable breast lesions: impact of a second-opinion review at a breast unit on BI-RADS classification
- 18 January 2021
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Springer Science and Business Media LLC in European Radiology
- Vol. 31 (8), 5913-5923
- https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07664-1
Abstract
Objective To compare BI-RADS classification, management, and outcome of nonpalpable breast lesions assessed both by community practices and by a multidisciplinary tumor board (MTB) at a breast unit. Methods All nonpalpable lesions that were first assigned a BI-RADS score by community practices and then reassessed by an MTB at a single breast unit from 2009 to 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. Inter-review agreement was assessed with Cohen’s kappa statistic. Changes in biopsy recommendation were calculated. The percentage of additional tumor lesions detected by the MTB was obtained. The sensitivity, AUC, and cancer rates for BI-RADS category 3, 4, and 5 lesions were computed for both reviews. Results A total of 1909 nonpalpable lesions in 1732 patients were included. For BI-RADS scores in the whole cohort, a fair agreement was found (κ = 0.40 [0.36–0.45]) between the two reviews. Agreement was higher when considering only mammography combined with ultrasound (κ = 0.53 [0.44–0.62]), masses (κ = 0.50 [0.44–0.56]), and architectural distortion (κ = 0.44 [0.11–0.78]). Changes in biopsy recommendation occurred in 589 cases (31%). Ninety of 345 additional biopsies revealed high-risk or malignant lesions. Overall, the MTB identified 27% additional high-risk and malignant lesions compared to community practices. The BI-RADS classification AUCs for detecting malignant lesions were 0.66 (0.63–0.69) for community practices and 0.76 (0.75–0.78) for the MTB (p < 0.001). Conclusion Agreement between community practices and MTB reviews for BI-RADS classification in nonpalpable lesions is only fair. MTB review improves diagnostic performances of breast imaging and patient management. Key Points • The inter-review agreement for BI-RADS classification between community practices and the multidisciplinary board was only fair (κ = 0.40). • Disagreements resulted in changes of biopsy recommendation in 31% of the lesions. • The multidisciplinary board identified 27% additional high-risk and malignant lesions compared to community practices.This publication has 26 references indexed in Scilit:
- Patterns of Recurrence and Outcome According to Breast Cancer Subtypes in Lymph Node–Negative Disease: Results From International Breast Cancer Study Group Trials VIII and IXJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2013
- Benefits of multidisciplinary teamwork in the management of breast cancerBreast Cancer: Targets and Therapy, 2013
- Effects of multidisciplinary team working on breast cancer survival: retrospective, comparative, interventional cohort study of 13 722 womenBMJ, 2012
- The clinician’s role in the diagnosis of breast diseaseJournal of Ultrasound, 2011
- Variability in Interpretive Performance at Screening Mammography and Radiologists’ Characteristics Associated with AccuracyRadiology, 2009
- Changes in surgical management resulting from case review at a breast cancer multidisciplinary tumor boardCancer, 2006
- Volume and Impact of Second-Opinion Consultations by Radiologists at a Tertiary Care Cancer Center: DataAcademic Radiology, 2002
- A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal ScalesEducational and Psychological Measurement, 1960