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
  • [41] Comparison of Qualitative and Volumetric Assessments of Breast Density and Analyses of Breast Compression Parameters and Breast Volume of Women in Bahcesehir Mammography Screening Project
    Gemici, Aysegul Akdogan
    Aribal, Erkin
    Ozaydin, Ayse Nilufer
    Gurdal, Sibel Ozkan
    Ozcinar, Beyza
    Cabioglu, Neslihan
    Ozmen, Vahit
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF BREAST HEALTH, 2020, 16 (02) : 110 - 116
  • [42] The TOMMY trial: a comparison of TOMosynthesis with digital MammographY in the UK NHS Breast Screening Programme a multicentre retrospective reading study comparing the diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography with digital mammography alone
    Gilbert, Fiona J.
    Tucker, Lorraine
    Gillan, Maureen G. C.
    Willsher, Paula
    Cooke, Julie
    Duncan, Karen A.
    Michell, Michael J.
    Dobson, Hilary M.
    Lim, Yit Yoong
    Purushothaman, Hema
    Strudley, Celia
    Astley, Susan M.
    Morrish, Oliver
    Young, Kenneth C.
    Duffy, Stephen W.
    [J]. HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, 2015, 19 (04) : 1 - +
  • [43] Community-Based Breast Cancer Screening Using Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Versus Digital Mammography: Comparison of Screening Performance and Tumor Characteristics
    Regen-Tuero, Helaina C.
    Ram, Shruthi
    Gass, Jennifer S.
    Lourenco, Ana P.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2022, 218 (02) : 249 - 256
  • [44] DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY FOR SCREENING AND DIAGNOSIS OF BREAST CANCER: AN OVERVIEW
    Van Ongeval, Ch.
    [J]. JBR-BTR, 2007, 90 (03): : 163 - 166
  • [45] Comparison of the clinical performance of three digital mammography systems in a breast cancer screening programme
    Keavey, E.
    Phelan, N.
    O'Connell, A. M.
    Flanagan, F.
    O'Doherty, A.
    Larke, A.
    Connors, A. M.
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2012, 85 (1016): : 1123 - 1127
  • [46] Breast tomosynthesis: A diagnostic addition to screening digital mammography
    El Bakry, Rehab Abdel Rahman
    [J]. EGYPTIAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE, 2018, 49 (02): : 529 - 535
  • [47] Radiation risk of breast screening in England with digital mammography
    Warren, Lucy M.
    Dance, David R.
    Young, Kenneth C.
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2016, 89 (1067):
  • [48] Comparison of standard mammography with digital mammography and digital infrared thermal imaging for breast cancer screening
    Kosus, Nermin
    Kosus, Aydin
    Duran, Muzeyyen
    Simavli, Serap
    Turhan, Nilgun
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE TURKISH-GERMAN GYNECOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, 2010, 11 (03) : 152 - 157
  • [49] Digital mammography in breast cancer screening: a step forward?
    Bluekens, Adriana M. J.
    Broeders, Mireille J. M.
    den Heeten, Gerard J.
    [J]. EXPERT REVIEW OF ANTICANCER THERAPY, 2013, 13 (05) : 505 - 507
  • [50] Initial Experience With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Screening Mammography
    Philpotts, L.
    Raghu, M.
    Durand, M.
    Hooley, R.
    Vashi, R.
    Horvath, L.
    Geisel, J.
    Butler, R.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2012, 198 (05)