RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Mammographic breast density, a strong risk factor for breast cancer, may be measured as either a relative percentage of dense (ie, radiopaque) breast tissue or as an absolute area from either raw (ie, "for processing") or vendor postprocessed (ie, "for presentation") digital mammograms. Given the increasing interest in the incorporation of mammographic density in breast cancer risk assessment, the purpose of this study is to determine the inherent reader variability in breast density assessment from raw and vendor-processed digital mammograms, because inconsistent estimates could to lead to misclassification of an individual woman's risk for breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Bilateral, mediolateral-oblique view, raw, and processed digital mammograms of 81 women were retrospectively collected for this study (N = 324 images). Mammographic percent density and absolute dense tissue area estimates for each image were obtained from two radiologists using a validated, interactive software tool. RESULTS: The variability of interreader agreement was not found to be affected by the image presentation style (ie, raw or processed, F-test: P > .5). Interreader estimates of relative and absolute breast density are strongly correlated (Pearson r > 0.84, P < .001) but systematically different (t-test, P < .001) between the two readers. CONCLUSION: Our results show that mammographic density may be assessed with equal reliability from either raw or vendor postprocessed images. Furthermore, our results suggest that the primary source of density variability comes from the subjectivity of the individual reader in assessing the absolute amount of dense tissue present in the breast, indicating the need to use standardized tools to mitigate this effect.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Mammographic breast density, a strong risk factor for breast cancer, may be measured as either a relative percentage of dense (ie, radiopaque) breast tissue or as an absolute area from either raw (ie, "for processing") or vendor postprocessed (ie, "for presentation") digital mammograms. Given the increasing interest in the incorporation of mammographic density in breast cancer risk assessment, the purpose of this study is to determine the inherent reader variability in breast density assessment from raw and vendor-processed digital mammograms, because inconsistent estimates could to lead to misclassification of an individual woman's risk for breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Bilateral, mediolateral-oblique view, raw, and processed digital mammograms of 81 women were retrospectively collected for this study (N = 324 images). Mammographic percent density and absolute dense tissue area estimates for each image were obtained from two radiologists using a validated, interactive software tool. RESULTS: The variability of interreader agreement was not found to be affected by the image presentation style (ie, raw or processed, F-test: P > .5). Interreader estimates of relative and absolute breast density are strongly correlated (Pearson r > 0.84, P < .001) but systematically different (t-test, P < .001) between the two readers. CONCLUSION: Our results show that mammographic density may be assessed with equal reliability from either raw or vendor postprocessed images. Furthermore, our results suggest that the primary source of density variability comes from the subjectivity of the individual reader in assessing the absolute amount of dense tissue present in the breast, indicating the need to use standardized tools to mitigate this effect.
Authors: S Ciatto; N Houssami; A Apruzzese; E Bassetti; B Brancato; F Carozzi; S Catarzi; M P Lamberini; G Marcelli; R Pellizzoni; B Pesce; G Risso; F Russo; A Scorsolini Journal: Breast Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 4.380
Authors: John A Shepherd; Karla Kerlikowske; Lin Ma; Frederick Duewer; Bo Fan; Jeff Wang; Serghei Malkov; Eric Vittinghoff; Steven R Cummings Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2011-05-24 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Beatriz Pérez-Gómez; Franciso Ruiz; Inmaculada Martínez; María Casals; Josefa Miranda; Carmen Sánchez-Contador; Carmen Vidal; Rafael Llobet; Marina Pollán; Dolores Salas Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2011-11-01 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: M H Gail; L A Brinton; D P Byar; D K Corle; S B Green; C Schairer; J J Mulvihill Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1989-12-20 Impact factor: 13.506
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
Authors: M B I Lobbes; J P M Cleutjens; V Lima Passos; C Frotscher; M J Lahaye; K B M I Keymeulen; R G Beets-Tan; J Wildberger; C Boetes Journal: Insights Imaging Date: 2011-11-20
Authors: Mohamed Abdolell; Kaitlyn Tsuruda; Christopher B Lightfoot; Eva Barkova; Melanie McQuaid; Judy Caines; Sian E Iles Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2015-10-30
Authors: Abra M Jeffers; Weiva Sieh; Jafi A Lipson; Joseph H Rothstein; Valerie McGuire; Alice S Whittemore; Daniel L Rubin Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-09-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Anne Marie McCarthy; Brad M Keller; Lauren M Pantalone; Meng-Kang Hsieh; Marie Synnestvedt; Emily F Conant; Katrina Armstrong; Despina Kontos Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2016-04-29 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Aimilia Gastounioti; Christine Damases Kasi; Christopher G Scott; Kathleen R Brandt; Matthew R Jensen; Carrie B Hruska; Fang F Wu; Aaron D Norman; Emily F Conant; Stacey J Winham; Karla Kerlikowske; Despina Kontos; Celine M Vachon Journal: Radiology Date: 2020-05-12 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Lin Chen; Shonket Ray; Brad M Keller; Said Pertuz; Elizabeth S McDonald; Emily F Conant; Despina Kontos Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-03-22 Impact factor: 11.105