PURPOSE: To evaluate inter- and intrareader agreement in breast percent density (PD) estimation on clinical digital mammograms and central digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) projection images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This HIPAA-compliant study had institutional review board approval; all patients provided informed consent. Breast PD estimation was performed on the basis of anonymized digital mammograms and central DBT projections in 39 women (mean age, 51 years; range, 31-80 years). All women had recently detected abnormalities or biopsy-proved cancers. PD was estimated by three experienced readers on the mediolateral oblique views of the contralateral breasts by using software; each reader repeated the estimation after 2 months. Spearman correlations of inter- and intrareader and intermodality PD estimates, as well as kappa statistics between categoric PD estimates, were computed. RESULTS: High correlation (rho = 0.91) was observed between PD estimates on digital mammograms and those on central DBT projections, averaged over all estimations; the corresponding kappa coefficient (0.79) indicated substantial agreement. Mean interreader agreement for PD estimation on central DBT projections (rho = 0.85 +/- 0.05 [standard deviation]) was significantly higher (P < .01) than that for PD estimation on digital mammograms (rho = 0.75 +/- 0.05); the corresponding kappa coefficients indicated substantial (kappa = 0.65 +/- 0.12) and moderate (kappa = 0.55 +/- 0.14) agreement for central DBT projections and digital mammograms, respectively. CONCLUSION: High correlation between PD estimates on digital mammograms and those on central DBT projections suggests the latter could be used until a method for PD estimation based on three-dimensional reconstructed images is introduced. Moreover, clinical PD estimation is possible with reduced radiation dose, as each DBT projection was acquired by using about 22% of the dose for a single mammographic projection. (c) RSNA, 2009.
PURPOSE: To evaluate inter- and intrareader agreement in breast percent density (PD) estimation on clinical digital mammograms and central digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) projection images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This HIPAA-compliant study had institutional review board approval; all patients provided informed consent. Breast PD estimation was performed on the basis of anonymized digital mammograms and central DBT projections in 39 women (mean age, 51 years; range, 31-80 years). All women had recently detected abnormalities or biopsy-proved cancers. PD was estimated by three experienced readers on the mediolateral oblique views of the contralateral breasts by using software; each reader repeated the estimation after 2 months. Spearman correlations of inter- and intrareader and intermodality PD estimates, as well as kappa statistics between categoric PD estimates, were computed. RESULTS: High correlation (rho = 0.91) was observed between PD estimates on digital mammograms and those on central DBT projections, averaged over all estimations; the corresponding kappa coefficient (0.79) indicated substantial agreement. Mean interreader agreement for PD estimation on central DBT projections (rho = 0.85 +/- 0.05 [standard deviation]) was significantly higher (P < .01) than that for PD estimation on digital mammograms (rho = 0.75 +/- 0.05); the corresponding kappa coefficients indicated substantial (kappa = 0.65 +/- 0.12) and moderate (kappa = 0.55 +/- 0.14) agreement for central DBT projections and digital mammograms, respectively. CONCLUSION: High correlation between PD estimates on digital mammograms and those on central DBT projections suggests the latter could be used until a method for PD estimation based on three-dimensional reconstructed images is introduced. Moreover, clinical PD estimation is possible with reduced radiation dose, as each DBT projection was acquired by using about 22% of the dose for a single mammographic projection. (c) RSNA, 2009.
Authors: John A Shepherd; Karla M Kerlikowske; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Harry K Genant; Steve R Cummings Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Olga Pawluczyk; Bindu J Augustine; Martin J Yaffe; Dan Rico; Jiwei Yang; Gordon E Mawdsley; Norman F Boyd Journal: Med Phys Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Celine M Vachon; Thomas A Sellers; Robert A Vierkant; Fang-Fang Wu; Kathleen R Brandt Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: C K Chow; D Venzon; E C Jones; A Premkumar; J O'Shaughnessy; J Zujewski Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Jack Cuzick; Jane Warwick; Elizabeth Pinney; Ruth M L Warren; Stephen W Duffy Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2004-04-21 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: David B Thomas; Rachel A Carter; William H Bush; Roberta M Ray; Janet L Stanford; Constance D Lehman; Janet R Daling; Kathi Malone; Scott Davis Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Said Pertuz; Elizabeth S McDonald; Susan P Weinstein; Emily F Conant; Despina Kontos Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-10-21 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Despina Kontos; Lynda C Ikejimba; Predrag R Bakic; Andrea B Troxel; Emily F Conant; Andrew D A Maidment Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-07-19 Impact factor: 11.105