Volumetric breast density affects performance of digital screening mammography

被引:113
|
作者
Wanders, Johanna O. P. [1 ]
Holland, Katharina [2 ]
Veldhuis, Wouter B. [3 ]
Mann, Ritse M. [2 ]
Pijnappel, Ruud M. [3 ,4 ]
Peeters, Petra H. M. [1 ,5 ]
van Gils, Carla H. [1 ]
Karssemeijer, Nico [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Med Ctr Utrecht, Julius Ctr Hlth Sci & Primary Care, POB 85500, NL-3508 GA Utrecht, Netherlands
[2] Radboud Univ Nijmegen, Dept Radiol & Nucl Med, Med Ctr, Geert Grootepl 10, NL-6525 GA Nijmegen, Netherlands
[3] Univ Med Ctr Utrecht, Dept Radiol, POB 85500, NL-3508 GA Utrecht, Netherlands
[4] Dutch Reference Ctr Screening, Postbus 6873, NL-6503 GJ Nijmegen, Netherlands
[5] Imperial Coll London, Dept Epidemiol & Biostat, MRC PHE Ctr Environm & Hlth, Sch Publ Hlth, St Marys Campus,Norfolk Pl, London W2 1PG, England
关键词
Mammographic density; Breast cancer; Cancer screening; Mammography; Breast; FILM MAMMOGRAPHY; CANCER RISK; VISUAL ASSESSMENT; UNITED-STATES; CATEGORIES; COHORT; WOMEN;
D O I
10.1007/s10549-016-4090-7
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
To determine to what extent automatically measured volumetric mammographic density influences screening performance when using digital mammography (DM). We collected a consecutive series of 111,898 DM examinations (2003-2011) from one screening unit of the Dutch biennial screening program (age 50-75 years). Volumetric mammographic density was automatically assessed using Volpara. We determined screening performance measures for four density categories comparable to the American College of Radiology (ACR) breast density categories. Of all the examinations, 21.6% were categorized as density category 1 ('almost entirely fatty') and 41.5, 28.9, and 8.0% as category 2-4 ('extremely dense'), respectively. We identified 667 screen-detected and 234 interval cancers. Interval cancer rates were 0.7, 1.9, 2.9, and 4.4aEuro degrees and false positive rates were 11.2, 15.1, 18.2, and 23.8aEuro degrees for categories 1-4, respectively (both p-trend < 0.001). The screening sensitivity, calculated as the proportion of screen-detected among the total of screen-detected and interval tumors, was lower in higher density categories: 85.7, 77.6, 69.5, and 61.0% for categories 1-4, respectively (p-trend < 0.001). Volumetric mammographic density, automatically measured on digital mammograms, impacts screening performance measures along the same patterns as established with ACR breast density categories. Since measuring breast density fully automatically has much higher reproducibility than visual assessment, this automatic method could help with implementing density-based supplemental screening.
引用
收藏
页码:95 / 103
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Reproducibility of automated volumetric breast density assessment in short-term digital mammography reimaging
    Ko, Eun Sook
    Kim, Rock Bum
    Han, Boo-Kyung
    [J]. CLINICAL IMAGING, 2015, 39 (04) : 582 - 586
  • [22] BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS OR DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY FOR BREAST CANCER SCREENING?
    Svahn, Tony
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS IN THE BALTIC STATES, 2011, : 53 - 56
  • [23] Microcalcifications Detected at Screening Mammography: Synthetic Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis versus Digital Mammography
    Lai, Yi-Chen
    Ray, Kimberly M.
    Lee, Amie Y.
    Hayward, Jessica H.
    Freimanis, Rita I.
    Lobach, Iryna V.
    Joe, Bonnie N.
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2018, 289 (03) : 630 - 638
  • [24] Digital Breast Tomosynthesis versus Digital Mammography Screening Performance on Successive Screening Rounds from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium
    Sprague, Brian L.
    Coley, Rebecca Yates
    Lowry, Kathryn P.
    Kerlikowske, Karla
    Henderson, Louise M.
    Su, Yu-Ru
    Lee, Christoph I.
    Onega, Tracy
    Bowles, Erin J. A.
    Herschorn, Sally D.
    diFlorio-Alexander, Roberta M.
    Miglioretti, Diana L.
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2023, 307 (05) : e223142
  • [25] Performance of dedicated breast PET in breast cancer screening: comparison with digital mammography plus digital breast tomosynthesis and ultrasound
    Yuge, Shunsuke
    Miyake, Kanae K.
    Ishimori, Takayoshi
    Kataoka, Masako
    Matsumoto, Yoshiaki
    Torii, Masae
    Yakami, Masahiro
    Isoda, Hiroyoshi
    Takakura, Kyoko
    Morita, Satoshi
    Takada, Masahiro
    Toi, Masakazu
    Nakamoto, Yuji
    [J]. ANNALS OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE, 2023, 37 (09) : 479 - 493
  • [26] Performance of dedicated breast PET in breast cancer screening: comparison with digital mammography plus digital breast tomosynthesis and ultrasound
    Shunsuke Yuge
    Kanae K. Miyake
    Takayoshi Ishimori
    Masako Kataoka
    Yoshiaki Matsumoto
    Masae Torii
    Masahiro Yakami
    Hiroyoshi Isoda
    Kyoko Takakura
    Satoshi Morita
    Masahiro Takada
    Masakazu Toi
    Yuji Nakamoto
    [J]. Annals of Nuclear Medicine, 2023, 37 : 479 - 493
  • [27] Screening Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Controversies
    Funaro, Kimberly
    Drukteinis, Jennifer
    Falcon, Shannon
    [J]. SOUTHERN MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2017, 110 (10) : 607 - 613
  • [28] Breast Cancer Screening With Tomosynthesis and Digital Mammography
    Seidenwurm, David
    Rosenberg, Robert
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2014, 312 (16): : 1695 - 1695
  • [29] Digital mammography: Are there advantages in screening for breast cancer?
    Nees, Alexis V.
    [J]. ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 2008, 15 (04) : 401 - 407
  • [30] Comparative performance of modern digital mammography systems in a large breast screening program
    Yaffe, Martin J.
    Bloomquist, Aili K.
    Hunter, David M.
    Mawdsley, Gordon E.
    Chiarelli, Anna M.
    Muradali, Derek
    Mainprize, James G.
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2013, 40 (12)