Literature DB >> 17616811

Reproducibility of visual assessment on mammographic density.

Jinnan Gao1, Ruth Warren, Helen Warren-Forward, John F Forbes.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: High mammographic density was an independent risk factor for breast cancer and has a higher associated risk than most other known risk factors. The reproducibility remains a major issue in assessment of breast parenchymal patterns. Misclassification of mammographic pattern can lead to significant underestimation of risk estimates. The purpose of this study was to assess the inter-rater and intra-rater reliability based on visual subjective mammographic density measurements.
METHOD: Three density measures, Wolfe parenchymal pattern, Boyd classification scale, and a percentage of densities in total breast, were investigated. The study included 101 women who were participants of the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study I (IBIS I) for up to 7 years. Seven sets of mammograms were collected for each woman. Left breast mediolateral oblique films were digitized, and the scanned images were independently reviewed by two readers. These images were reassessed by one reader after a year. The agreements of measures were evaluated by Kappa statistics (Wolfe and Boyd scale) and intraclass correlation coefficient (percentage densities).
RESULTS: For the inter-rater agreement, Weighted Kappa for Wolfe scale was 0.89 (P < 0.0001) and for Boyd scale was 0.84 (P < 0.0001). The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.94 for percentage densities. For the intra-rater agreement, Weighted Kappa for Wolfe scale was 0.87 (P < 0.0001) and for Boyd scale was 0.86 (P < 0.0001). The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.96 for percentage densities.
CONCLUSION: The study concludes that both visual qualitative and quantitative measurements on mammographic density are highly reproducible in the breast cancer research studies if appropriate training is provided. The method is appropriate for risk assessment in a prevention trial.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17616811     DOI: 10.1007/s10549-007-9581-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat        ISSN: 0167-6806            Impact factor:   4.872


  20 in total

Review 1.  Clinical and epidemiological issues in mammographic density.

Authors:  Valentina Assi; Jane Warwick; Jack Cuzick; Stephen W Duffy
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-12-06       Impact factor: 66.675

2.  Methods for assessing and representing mammographic density: an analysis of 4 case-control studies.

Authors:  Christy G Woolcott; Shannon M Conroy; Chisato Nagata; Giske Ursin; Celine M Vachon; Martin J Yaffe; Ian S Pagano; Celia Byrne; Gertraud Maskarinec
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2013-10-11       Impact factor: 4.897

3.  Association between mammographic density and age-related lobular involution of the breast.

Authors:  Karthik Ghosh; Lynn C Hartmann; Carol Reynolds; Daniel W Visscher; Kathleen R Brandt; Robert A Vierkant; Christopher G Scott; Derek C Radisky; Thomas A Sellers; V Shane Pankratz; Celine M Vachon
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-03-29       Impact factor: 44.544

4.  Percent Mammographic Density and Dense Area as Risk Factors for Breast Cancer.

Authors:  C Rauh; C C Hack; L Häberle; A Hein; A Engel; M G Schrauder; P A Fasching; S M Jud; A B Ekici; C R Loehberg; M Meier-Meitinger; S Ozan; R Schulz-Wendtland; M Uder; A Hartmann; D L Wachter; M W Beckmann; K Heusinger
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 2.915

Review 5.  Measurement of breast density with digital breast tomosynthesis--a systematic review.

Authors:  E U Ekpo; M F McEntee
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2014-08-22       Impact factor: 3.039

6.  Breast Cancer Risk - Genes, Environment and Clinics.

Authors:  P A Fasching; A B Ekici; B R Adamietz; D L Wachter; A Hein; C M Bayer; L Häberle; C R Loehberg; S M Jud; K Heusinger; M Rübner; C Rauh; M R Bani; M P Lux; R Schulz-Wendtland; A Hartmann; M W Beckmann
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 2.915

7.  Breast density scales: the metric matters.

Authors:  Mohamed Abdolell; Kaitlyn M Tsuruda; Peter Brown; Judy S Caines; Sian E Iles
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2017-09-08       Impact factor: 3.039

8.  Evaluation of mammographic density patterns: reproducibility and concordance among scales.

Authors:  Macarena Garrido-Estepa; Francisco Ruiz-Perales; Josefa Miranda; Nieves Ascunce; Isabel González-Román; Carmen Sánchez-Contador; Carmen Santamariña; Pilar Moreo; Carmen Vidal; Mercé Peris; María P Moreno; Jose A Váquez-Carrete; Francisca Collado-García; Francisco Casanova; María Ederra; Dolores Salas; Marina Pollán
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2010-09-13       Impact factor: 4.430

9.  Independent association of lobular involution and mammographic breast density with breast cancer risk.

Authors:  Karthik Ghosh; Celine M Vachon; V Shane Pankratz; Robert A Vierkant; Stephanie S Anderson; Kathleen R Brandt; Daniel W Visscher; Carol Reynolds; Marlene H Frost; Lynn C Hartmann
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2010-10-29       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  Breast percent density: estimation on digital mammograms and central tomosynthesis projections.

Authors:  Predrag R Bakic; Ann-Katherine Carton; Despina Kontos; Cuiping Zhang; Andrea B Troxel; Andrew D A Maidment
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2009-05-06       Impact factor: 11.105

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.