{"title":"Evaluating intra and inter-observer bias in the cosmetic rating for random vs. serial assessment of breast photographs","authors":"Preeti Belani, Rima Pathak, Shraddha Kenekar, Gaurika Pokale, Pallavi Rane, Ashwini Chalke, Tabassum Wadasadawala","doi":"10.1016/j.rcro.2024.100152","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>This study was done to assess inter and intra-rater bias in rating of cosmesis, when breast photographs were evaluated serially or randomly by a panel of six members having varying years of experience.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Cosmetic assessment was done subjectively for 175 images [of 50 unilateral breast cancer patients for whom at least 3 images were collected], that were arranged serially from baseline to follow up in chronological order termed ‘serial assessment setting’ [SAS]. For ‘random assessment setting’ [RAS], all images was randomly arranged for assessment. Objectively assessment was also done using BCCT.core. Kappa index was calculated for agreement between the RAS and SAS rating for the 3 panellists' groups and with BCCT.core.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Good agreement [kappa 0.659] was found between the mean panel cosmetic scores for both SAS and RAS. Fair agreement was found when subjective RAS [k = 0.301] and SAS [k = 0.343] scores were compared with the BCCT.core, which was highest for the most experienced panellists with SAS k = 0.387 and RAS k = 0.436. Both SAS and RAS had good intra-rater reliability.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>SAS improves the agreement with BCCT.core rating and may be used if validated in a larger cohort. The clinical experience of the panellist impacts cosmetic rating and must be considered before forming a panel.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":101248,"journal":{"name":"The Royal College of Radiologists Open","volume":"2 ","pages":"Article 100152"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2773066224000032/pdfft?md5=d1da5959a83d565df9856888d64d24ad&pid=1-s2.0-S2773066224000032-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Royal College of Radiologists Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2773066224000032","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
This study was done to assess inter and intra-rater bias in rating of cosmesis, when breast photographs were evaluated serially or randomly by a panel of six members having varying years of experience.
Methods
Cosmetic assessment was done subjectively for 175 images [of 50 unilateral breast cancer patients for whom at least 3 images were collected], that were arranged serially from baseline to follow up in chronological order termed ‘serial assessment setting’ [SAS]. For ‘random assessment setting’ [RAS], all images was randomly arranged for assessment. Objectively assessment was also done using BCCT.core. Kappa index was calculated for agreement between the RAS and SAS rating for the 3 panellists' groups and with BCCT.core.
Results
Good agreement [kappa 0.659] was found between the mean panel cosmetic scores for both SAS and RAS. Fair agreement was found when subjective RAS [k = 0.301] and SAS [k = 0.343] scores were compared with the BCCT.core, which was highest for the most experienced panellists with SAS k = 0.387 and RAS k = 0.436. Both SAS and RAS had good intra-rater reliability.
Conclusions
SAS improves the agreement with BCCT.core rating and may be used if validated in a larger cohort. The clinical experience of the panellist impacts cosmetic rating and must be considered before forming a panel.