Premium
Variations in the sonographic measurement techniques of BI‐RADS 3 breast masses
Author(s) -
Francisco Juliana,
Jales Rodrigo Menezes,
de Oliveira André Desuó Bueno,
Arguello Carlos Henrique Francisco,
Derchain Sophie
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
journal of clinical ultrasound
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.272
H-Index - 61
eISSN - 1097-0096
pISSN - 0091-2751
DOI - 10.1002/jcu.22475
Subject(s) - medicine , bi rads , nuclear medicine , ultrasound , limits of agreement , volume (thermodynamics) , radiology , breast cancer , mammography , cancer , physics , quantum mechanics
Objective To evaluate the differences in sonographic (US) distance and volume measurements from different sonologists and identify the optimal parameters to avoid clinically relevant variations in the measurement of BI‐RADS 3 breast masses. Methods For this cross‐sectional study with prospectively collected data, four physicians with various levels of experience in US, herein called sonologists, performed distance and volume US measurements of 80 masses classified as BI‐RADS 3. The Cochran Q test was used to compare the matched sets of rates of clinically relevant variability between all pairs of sonologists' measurements. Results There were clinically relevant differences between sonologists in the measurements of the longest diameter (range, 17.5–43.7%, p = 0.003), the longest diameter perpendicular to the previous one (anteroposterior diameter) (17.5–33.7%, p = 0.06), the third diameter orthogonal to the plane defined by the previous two (transverse diameter) (28.7–55%, p = 0.001), and at least two of those three diameters (18.7–38.7%, p = 0.015). The smallest clinically relevant differences were observed with volume measurements (range of differences, 6.2–13.7%, p = 0.51). Conclusions Volume measurement technique was associated with the least variations, whereas distance measurements, which are used routinely, were associated with unacceptable rates of clinically relevant variations. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Clin Ultrasound 45 :252–260, 2017