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
  • [31] Clinical dose performance of full field digital mammography in a breast screening programme
    McCullagh, J. B.
    Baldelli, P.
    Phelan, N.
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2011, 84 (1007): : 1027 - 1033
  • [32] Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening
    Pisano, ED
    Gatsonis, C
    Hendrick, E
    Yaffe, M
    Baum, JK
    Acharyya, S
    Conant, EF
    Fajardo, LL
    Bassett, L
    D'Orsi, C
    Jong, R
    Rebner, M
    [J]. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2005, 353 (17): : 1773 - 1783
  • [33] Screening Mammography Performance Metrics of 2D Digital Mammography Versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Women With a Personal History of Breast Cancer
    Chikarmane, Sona A.
    Cochon, Laila R.
    Khorasani, Ramin
    Sahu, Sonia
    Giess, Catherine S.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2021, 217 (03) : 587 - 594
  • [34] The influence of breast density on the sensitivity of mammography screening
    Verbeek, A. L. M.
    [J]. EJC SUPPLEMENTS, 2004, 2 (03): : 57 - 57
  • [35] Comparison of Tomosynthesis Plus Digital Mammography and Digital Mammography Alone for Breast Cancer Screening
    Haas, Brian M.
    Kalra, Vivek
    Geisel, Jaime
    Raghu, Madhavi
    Durand, Melissa
    Philpotts, Liane E.
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2013, 269 (03) : 694 - 700
  • [36] Breast Cancer Screening via Digital Mammography, Synthetic Mammography, and Tomosynthesis
    Cohen, Ethan O.
    Weaver, Olena O.
    Tso, Hilda H.
    Gerlach, Karen E.
    Leung, Jessica W. T.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PREVENTIVE MEDICINE, 2020, 58 (03) : 470 - 472
  • [37] Mammographic breast density: How it affects performance indicators in screening programmes?
    Posso, Margarita
    Louro, Javier
    Sanchez, Mar
    Roman, Marta
    Vidal, Carmen
    Sala, Maria
    Bare, Marisa
    Castells, Xavier
    Buron, Andrea
    Domingo, Laia
    Rodriguez-Arana, Ana
    Servitja, Sonia
    Vernet, Mar
    Benito, Llucia
    Jesus Quintana, Maria
    Sola-Roca, Judit
    Prieto, Miguel
    Galceran, Jaume
    Saladie, Francina
    Ferrer, Joana
    Alfons Espinas, Josep
    Penalva, Lupe
    Tora-Rocamora, Isabel
    Bargallo, Xavier
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2019, 110 : 81 - 87
  • [38] Digital Mammography versus Digital Mammography Plus Tomosynthesis in Breast Cancer Screening: The Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial
    Skaane, Per
    Bandos, Andriy L.
    Niklason, Loren T.
    Sebuodegard, Sofie
    Osteras, Bjorn H.
    Gullien, Randi
    Gur, David
    Hofvind, Solveig
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2019, 291 (01) : 22 - 29
  • [39] Impact of breast density on diagnostic accuracy in digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: results from a European screening trial
    Olinder, Jakob
    Johnson, Kristin
    Akesson, Anna
    Fornvik, Daniel
    Zackrisson, Sophia
    [J]. BREAST CANCER RESEARCH, 2023, 25 (01)
  • [40] Impact of breast density on diagnostic accuracy in digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: results from a European screening trial
    Jakob Olinder
    Kristin Johnson
    Anna Åkesson
    Daniel Förnvik
    Sophia Zackrisson
    [J]. Breast Cancer Research, 25