Hye Mi Gweon1, Ji Hyun Youk, Jeong-Ah Kim, Eun Ju Son. 1. Department of Radiology, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 211 Eonju-ro, Dogok-Dong, Gangnam-Gu, Seoul 135-720, South Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to estimate mammographic breast density using a fully automated volumetric breast density measurement method in comparison with BI-RADS breast density categories determined by radiologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 791 full-field digital mammography examinations with standard views were evaluated by three blinded radiologists as BI-RADS density categories 1-4. For fully automated volumetric analysis, volumetric breast density was calculated with fully automated software. The volume of fibroglandular tissue, the volume of the breast, and the volumetric percentage density were provided. RESULTS: The weighted overall kappa was 0.48 (moderate agreement) for the three radiologists' estimates of BI-RADS density. Pairwise comparisons of the radiologists' measurements of BI-RADS density revealed moderate to substantial agreement, with kappa values ranging from 0.51 to 0.64. There was a significant difference in mean volumetric breast density among the BI-RADS density categories, and the mean volumetric breast density increased as the BI-RADS density category increased (p<0.001). A significant positive correlation was found between BI-RADS categories and fully automated volumetric breast density (ρ=0.765, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Our study showed good correlation of the fully automated volumetric method with radiologist-assigned BI-RADS density categories. Mammographic density assessment with the fully automated volumetric method may be used to assign BI-RADS density categories.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to estimate mammographic breast density using a fully automated volumetric breast density measurement method in comparison with BI-RADS breast density categories determined by radiologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 791 full-field digital mammography examinations with standard views were evaluated by three blinded radiologists as BI-RADS density categories 1-4. For fully automated volumetric analysis, volumetric breast density was calculated with fully automated software. The volume of fibroglandular tissue, the volume of the breast, and the volumetric percentage density were provided. RESULTS: The weighted overall kappa was 0.48 (moderate agreement) for the three radiologists' estimates of BI-RADS density. Pairwise comparisons of the radiologists' measurements of BI-RADS density revealed moderate to substantial agreement, with kappa values ranging from 0.51 to 0.64. There was a significant difference in mean volumetric breast density among the BI-RADS density categories, and the mean volumetric breast density increased as the BI-RADS density category increased (p<0.001). A significant positive correlation was found between BI-RADS categories and fully automated volumetric breast density (ρ=0.765, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Our study showed good correlation of the fully automated volumetric method with radiologist-assigned BI-RADS density categories. Mammographic density assessment with the fully automated volumetric method may be used to assign BI-RADS density categories.
Authors: Hui Li; William A Weiss; Milica Medved; Hiroyuki Abe; Gillian M Newstead; Gregory S Karczmar; Maryellen L Giger Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2016-12-28
Authors: Daniela Sacchetto; Lia Morra; Silvano Agliozzo; Daniela Bernardi; Tomas Björklund; Beniamino Brancato; Patrizia Bravetti; Luca A Carbonaro; Loredana Correale; Carmen Fantò; Elisabetta Favettini; Laura Martincich; Luisella Milanesio; Sara Mombelloni; Francesco Monetti; Doralba Morrone; Marco Pellegrini; Barbara Pesce; Antonella Petrillo; Gianni Saguatti; Carmen Stevanin; Rubina M Trimboli; Paola Tuttobene; Marvi Valentini; Vincenzo Marra; Alfonso Frigerio; Alberto Bert; Francesco Sardanelli Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-05-01 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Kathleen R Brandt; Christopher G Scott; Lin Ma; Amir P Mahmoudzadeh; Matthew R Jensen; Dana H Whaley; Fang Fang Wu; Serghei Malkov; Carrie B Hruska; Aaron D Norman; John Heine; John Shepherd; V Shane Pankratz; Karla Kerlikowske; Celine M Vachon Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-12-22 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Charlotte C Gard; Erin J Aiello Bowles; Diana L Miglioretti; Stephen H Taplin; Carolyn M Rutter Journal: Breast J Date: 2015-07-01 Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Gretchen L Gierach; Berta M Geller; John A Shepherd; Deesha A Patel; Pamela M Vacek; Donald L Weaver; Rachael E Chicoine; Ruth M Pfeiffer; Bo Fan; Amir Pasha Mahmoudzadeh; Jeff Wang; Jason M Johnson; Sally D Herschorn; Louise A Brinton; Mark E Sherman Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2014-08-19 Impact factor: 4.254