Table 3.
Comparison of the performance of BI-RADS classification according to complete and abbreviated protocols
| Junior reader | Senior reader | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|||||
| Abbreviated | Complete | P | Abbreviated | Complete | P | |
| AUC | 0.985 | 0.983 | 0.33 | 0.987 | 0.989 | 0.69 |
|
| ||||||
| Sensitivitya | 100% (26/26) | 100% (26/26) | 1.00 | 100% (26/26) | 100% (26/26) | 1.00 |
|
| ||||||
| Specificityb | 91.5% (130/142) | 91.5% (130/142) | 1.00 | 95.1% (135/142) | 94.4% (134/142) | 0.71 |
|
| ||||||
| False positive rateb | 8.4% (12/142) | 8.4% (12/142) | - | 4.9% (7/142) | 5.6% (8/142) | - |
The reference standard was the diagnosis of cancer. AUC was computed by considering the five levels of BI-RADS classification. Sensitivity and specificity were computed by considering BI-RADS 4/5 against 1/2/3.
BI-RADS, breast imaging reporting and data system; AUC, area under the curve.
a
Computed on 26 malignant lesions;
b
Computed on 142 breasts without malignant lesions.