A test of performance of breast MRI interpretation in a multicentre screening study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the consistency and performance of radiologists interpreting breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two test sets of eight cases comprising cancers, benign disease, technical problems and parenchymal enhancement were prepared from two manufacturers' equipment (X and Y) and reported by 15 radiologists using the recording form and scoring system of the UK MRI breast screening study [(MAgnetic Resonance Imaging in Breast Screening (MARIBS)]. Variations in assessments of morphology, kinetic scores and diagnosis were measured by assessing intraobserver and interobserver variability and agreement. The sensitivity and specificity of reporting performances was determined using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. RESULTS: Intraobserver variation was seen in 13 (27.7%) of 47 of the radiologists' conclusions (four technical and seven pathological differences). Substantial interobserver variation was observed in the scores recorded for morphology, pattern of enhancement, quantification of enhancement and washout pattern. The overall sensitivity of breast MRI was high [88.6%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 77.4-94.7%], combined with a specificity of 69.2% (95% CI 60.5-76.7%). The sensitivities were similar for the two test sets (P=.3), but the specificity was significantly higher for the Manufacturer X dataset (P<.001). ROC curve analysis gave an area under the curve of 0.85 (95% CI 0.79-0.92) CONCLUSIONS: Substantial variation in all elements of the scoring system and in the overall diagnostic conclusions was observed between radiologists participating in MARIBS. High overall sensitivity was achieved with moderate specificity. Manufacturer-related differences in specificities possibly occurred because the numerical thresholds set for the scoring system were not optimised for both equipment manufacturers. Scoring systems developed on one equipment software may not be transferable to other manufacturers.

Coordinating ecological risk assessment with natural resource damage assessment: A panel discussion.

Contaminated sites in the United States undergo remediation and restoration through regulatory programs that lead the 2 processes through independent but often parallel pathways with different objectives. The objective of remediation is to reduce risk to human health and the environment, whereas that of restoration is to restore injured resources and compensate the public for lost use of the services that natural resources provide. More complex sites, such as those associated with large river systems and urban waterways, have resulted in increasingly larger-scale ecological risk assessments (ERAs) and natural resource damage assessments (NRDAs) that take many years and involve diverse practitioners including scientists, economists, and engineers. Substantial levels of effort are now frequently required, creating a need for more efficient and cost-effective approaches to data collection, analyses, and assessments. Because there are commonalities in the data needs between ERAs and NRDAs, coordination of the design and implementation of site-specific studies that meet the needs of both programs could result in increased efficiency and lower costs. The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences Foundation convened a panel of environmental practitioners from industry, consulting, and regulatory bodies to examine the benefits and challenges associated with coordinating ERA and NRDA activities in the context of a broad range of regulatory programs. This brief communication presents the opinions and conclusions of the panelists on these issues and reports 2 case studies for which coordinated ERA and NRDA activities produced a positive outcome. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2016;12:616-621. © 2015 SETAC.

Evaluation of a prospective scoring system designed for a multicenter breast MR imaging screening study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate prospectively the accuracy of a lesion classification system designed for use in a magnetic resonance (MR) imaging high-breast-cancer-risk screening study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All participating patients provided written informed consent. Ethics committee approval was obtained. The results of 1541 contrast material-enhanced breast MR imaging examinations were analyzed; 1441 screening examinations were performed in 638 women aged 24-51 years at high risk for breast cancer, and 100 examinations were performed in 100 women aged 23-81 years. Lesion analysis was performed in 991 breasts, which were divided into design (491 breasts) and testing (500 breasts) sets. The reference standard was histologic analysis of biopsy samples, fine-needle aspiration cytology, or minimal follow-up of 24 months. The scoring system involved the use of five features: morphology (MOR), pattern of enhancement (POE), percentage of maximal focal enhancement (PMFE), maximal signal intensity-time ratio (MITR), and pattern of contrast material washout (POCW). The system was evaluated by means of (a) assessment of interreader agreement, as expressed in kappa statistics, for 315 breasts in which both readers analyzed the same lesion, (b) assessment of the diagnostic accuracy of the scored components with receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, and (c) logistic regression analysis to determine which components of the scoring system were critical to the final score. A new simplified scoring system developed with the design set was applied to the testing set. RESULTS: There was moderate reader agreement regarding overall lesion outcome (ie, malignant, suspicious, or benign) (kappa=0.58) and less agreement regarding the scored components. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the overall lesion score, 0.88, was higher than the AUC for any one component. The components MOR, POE, and POCW yielded the best overall result. PMFE and MITR did not contribute to diagnostic utility. Applying a simplified scoring system to the testing set yielded a nonsignificantly (P=.2) higher AUC than did applying the original scoring system (sensitivity, 84%; specificity, 86.0%). CONCLUSION: Good diagnostic accuracy can be achieved by using simple qualitative descriptors of lesion enhancement, including POCW. In the context of screening, quantitative enhancement parameters appear to be less useful for lesion characterization.

Reading protocol for dynamic contrast-enhanced MR images of the breast: sensitivity and specificity analysis.

PURPOSE: To prospectively determine sensitivity and specificity of breast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in a screening and symptomatic population by using independent double reading, with histologic or cytologic results or a minimum 18-month follow-up as the standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Informed consent and ethical approval were obtained. Reader performance was analyzed in 44 radiologists at 18 centers from 1541 examinations, including 1441 screening examinations in 638 high-risk women aged 24-51 years (mean, 40.5 years) and 100 examinations in symptomatic women aged 23-81 years (mean, 49.2 years). A screening protocol of dynamic T1-weighted three-dimensional imaging and 0.2 mmol/kg gadolinium-based intravenous contrast agent was used. Logistic and Poisson regressions were used to analyze reader performance in relation to experience. Correlation between readers was determined with kappa statistics. Sensitivity and specificity were analyzed according to reader, field strength, machine type, and histologic results. RESULTS: The proportion of studies with lesions analyzed reduced significantly with reader experience (odds ratio, 0.84 per 6 months; P < .001), and number of regions per lesion analyzed also diminished (incidence rate ratio, 0.98 per 6 months; P = .047). The two readers for each study agreed 87% of the time, with a moderately good kappa statistic of 0.52 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.45, 0.58). By taking the reading with the highest score (most likely to be malignant) from each double-read study, sensitivity was 91% (95% CI: 83%, 96%) and specificity was 81% (95% CI: 79%, 83%). Single readings had 7% lower sensitivity (95% CI: 4%, 11%) and 7% higher specificity (95% CI: 6%, 7%). Sensitivity did not differ between MR imager manufacturers or between 1.0- and 1.5-T field strength, but there were significant differences in specificity for machine type (P = .001) and for field strength adjusted for manufacturer (P = .001). Specificity, but not sensitivity, was higher in women younger than 50 years (P = .02). CONCLUSION: Independent double reading by 44 radiologists blinded to mammography results showed sensitivity and specificity acceptable for screening; sensitivity was higher when two readings were used, at the cost of specificity. Interreader correlation was moderately good, and evidence of learning was seen. Equipment manufacturer, field strength, and age affected specificity but not sensitivity.