Comparing Visually Assessed BI-RADS Breast Density and Automated Volumetric Breast Density Software: A Cross-Sectional Study in a Breast Cancer Screening Setting

被引:61
|
作者
van der Waal, Danielle [1 ]
den Heeten, Gerard J. [2 ,3 ]
Pijnappel, Ruud M. [2 ,4 ]
Schuur, Klaas H. [2 ]
Timmers, Johanna M. H. [2 ]
Verbeek, Andre L. M. [1 ]
Broeders, Mireille J. M. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Radboud Univ Nijmegen, Med Ctr, Radboud Inst Hlth Sci, NL-6525 ED Nijmegen, Netherlands
[2] Dutch Reference Ctr Screening, Nijmegen, Netherlands
[3] Univ Amsterdam, Acad Med Ctr, Dept Radiol, NL-1105 AZ Amsterdam, Netherlands
[4] Univ Med Ctr Utrecht, Dept Radiol, Utrecht, Netherlands
来源
PLOS ONE | 2015年 / 10卷 / 09期
关键词
MAMMOGRAPHIC DENSITY; RISK-FACTORS; AGREEMENT; VARIABILITY; CATEGORIES; PATTERNS; REPRODUCIBILITY; CLASSIFICATION; RELIABILITY; INDEX;
D O I
10.1371/journal.pone.0136667
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Introduction The objective of this study is to compare different methods for measuring breast density, both visual assessments and automated volumetric density, in a breast cancer screening setting. These measures could potentially be implemented in future screening programmes, in the context of personalised screening or screening evaluation. Materials and Methods Digital mammographic exams (N = 992) of women participating in the Dutch breast cancer screening programme (age 50-75y) in 2013 were included. Breast density was measured in three different ways: BI-RADS density (5th edition) and with two commercially available automated software programs (Quantra and Volpara volumetric density). BI-RADS density (ordinal scale) was assessed by three radiologists. Quantra (v1.3) and Volpara (v1.5.0) provide continuous estimates. Different comparison methods were used, including Bland-Altman plots and correlation coefficients (e.g., intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]). Results Based on the BI-RADS classification, 40.8% of the women had 'heterogeneously or extremely dense' breasts. The median volumetric percent density was 12.1% (IQR: 9.6-16.5) for Quantra, which was higher than the Volpara estimate (median 6.6%, IQR: 4.4-10.9). The mean difference between Quantra and Volpara was 5.19% (95% CI: 5.04-5.34) (ICC: 0.64). There was a clear increase in volumetric percent dense volume as BI-RADS density increased. The highest accuracy for predicting the presence of BI-RADS c+d (heterogeneously or extremely dense) was observed with a cut-off value of 8.0% for Volpara and 13.8% for Quantra. Conclusion Although there was no perfect agreement, there appeared to be a strong association between all three measures. Both volumetric density measures seem to be usable in breast cancer screening programmes, provided that the required data flow can be realized.
引用
收藏
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Breast Cancer Risk and Mammographic Density Assessed with Semiautomated and Fully Automated Methods and BI-RADS
    Jeffers, Abra M.
    Sieh, Weiva
    Lipson, Jafi A.
    Rothstein, Joseph H.
    McGuire, Valerie
    Whittemore, Alice S.
    Rubin, Daniel L.
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2017, 282 (02) : 348 - 355
  • [2] BI-RADS Density Classification From Areometric and Volumetric Automatic Breast Density Measurements
    Osteras, Bjorn Helge
    Martinsen, Anne Catrine T.
    Brandal, Sid Helene B.
    Chaudhry, Khalida Nasreen
    Eben, Ellen
    Haakenaasen, Unni
    Falk, Ragnhild Sorum
    Skaane, Per
    [J]. ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 2016, 23 (04) : 468 - 478
  • [3] Radiologist Assessment of Breast Density by BI-RADS Categories Versus Fully Automated Volumetric Assessment
    Gweon, Hye Mi
    Youk, Ji Hyun
    Kim, Jeong-Ah
    Son, Eun Ju
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2013, 201 (03) : 692 - 697
  • [4] Breast cancer risk factors and a novel measure of volumetric breast density: cross-sectional study
    M Jeffreys
    R Warren
    R Highnam
    G Davey Smith
    [J]. British Journal of Cancer, 2008, 98 : 210 - 216
  • [5] Breast cancer risk factors and a novel measure of volumetric breast density: cross-sectional study
    Jeffreys, M.
    Warren, R.
    Highnam, R.
    Smith, G. Davey
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2008, 98 (01) : 210 - 216
  • [6] Automated Volumetric Breast Density Measurements in the Era of the BI-RADS Fifth Edition: A Comparison With Visual Assessment
    Youk, Ji Hyun
    Gweon, Hye Mi
    Son, Eun Ju
    Kim, Jeong-Ah
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2016, 206 (05) : 1056 - 1062
  • [7] Breast Density Estimation with Fully Automated Volumetric Method: Comparison to Radiologists' Assessment by BI-RADS Categories
    Singh, Tulika
    Sharma, Madhurima
    Singla, Veenu
    Khandelwal, Niranjan
    [J]. ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 2016, 23 (01) : 78 - 83
  • [8] Density map and fuzzy classification for breast density by using BI-RADS
    Valencia-Hernandez, I.
    Peregrina-Barreto, H.
    Reyes-Garcia, C. A.
    Lopez-Armas, G. C.
    [J]. COMPUTER METHODS AND PROGRAMS IN BIOMEDICINE, 2021, 200
  • [9] Radiological assessment of breast density by visual classification (BI-RADS) compared to automated volumetric digital software (Quantra): implications for clinical practice
    Regini, Elisa
    Mariscotti, Giovanna
    Durando, Manuela
    Ghione, Gianluca
    Luparia, Andrea
    Campanino, Pier Paolo
    Bianchi, Caterina Chiara
    Bergamasco, Laura
    Fonio, Paolo
    Gandini, Giovanni
    [J]. RADIOLOGIA MEDICA, 2014, 119 (10): : 741 - 749
  • [10] Breast density in Saudi Arabia: intra and inter reader variability in screening mammograms assessed visually using BI-RADS and Visual Analogue Scales
    Aloufi, Areej S.
    AlNaeem, Abdulrahman
    Almousa, Abeer
    Alzimami, Khaled
    Alfuraih, Abdulrahman
    Alshahrani, Bader
    Zayed, Mohammed
    AlMashouq, Taghrid
    Alnasser, Saud
    Aldossari, Khera
    Alomrani, Mona
    Alzahrani, Iman
    Harkness, Elaine F.
    Astley, Susan
    [J]. MEDICAL IMAGING 2020: IMAGE PERCEPTION, OBSERVER PERFORMANCE, AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, 2020, 11316