Cl. Siegel et al., CT OF CYSTIC RENAL MASSES - ANALYSIS OF DIAGNOSTIC PERFORMANCE AND INTEROBSERVER VARIATION, American journal of roentgenology, 169(3), 1997, pp. 813-818
OBJECTIVE. Our objective was to assess the clinical usefulness and int
erobserver variability of the Bosniak classification scheme for charac
terizing a series of pathologically proven cystic renal lesions imaged
with CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Seventy pathologically proven cystic
renal masses (38 benign, 32 malignant) in 46 patients were reviewed in
dependently by three radiologists. The cystic masses were categorized
by each reviewer according to both the Bosniak classification and the
receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Both the individual
results for each reader and the pooled results for all three readers w
ere analyzed. Interobserver agreement and discordance in classifying l
esions as Bosniak categories I-II or III-IV were assessed. RESULTS. Th
e distribution of the 70 lesions (based on the average of the three re
aders) was 22 Bosniak I (0% malignant), eight Bosniak II (13% malignan
t), 11 Bosniak III (45% malignant), and 29 Bosniak IV (90% malignant).
All readers agreed on the Bosniak classification in 59%, or 41 of the
70 lesions (I, 17; II, one; III, four; and IV, 19). Eleven (16%) of t
he 70 lesions were classified as Bosniak I or II by one reader and as
Bosniak In or TV by at least one other reader, The area under the curv
e for the pooled ROC analysis was calculated to be 0.957. Individual r
eader values ranged from 0.914 to 0.981. The sensitivities, specificit
ies, and accuracies for the three readers ranged from 94% to 100%, 71%
to 92%, and 84% to 93%. Assessment of interobserver variability by ka
ppa analysis yielded scores of .571 and .477 for the Bosniak and ROC a
nalyses, respectively. CONCLUSION. Overall, the Bosniak classification
scheme is useful for evaluating renal masses; however, interobserver
variation in distinguishing Bosniak II and Bosniak III lesions may pre
sent difficulties in recommending surgical Versus conservative managem
ent.