Literature DB >> 23971465

Radiologist assessment of breast density by BI-RADS categories versus fully automated volumetric assessment.

Hye Mi Gweon1, Ji Hyun Youk, Jeong-Ah Kim, Eun Ju Son.   

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.

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23971465     DOI: 10.2214/AJR.12.10197

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  28 in total

1.  Breast density estimation from high spectral and spatial resolution MRI.

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

2.  Breast tissue density change after oophorectomy in BRCA mutation carrier patients using visual and volumetric analysis.

Authors:  Augustin Lecler; Ariane Dunant; Suzette Delaloge; Delphine Wehrer; Tania Moussa; Olivier Caron; Corinne Balleyguier
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-01-05       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Mammographic density: Comparison of visual assessment with fully automatic calculation on a multivendor dataset.

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

4.  Intercountry analysis of breast density classification using visual grading.

Authors:  Christine N Damases; Peter Hogg; Mark F McEntee
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2017-06-14       Impact factor: 3.039

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.  Automated mammographic density measurement using Quantra™: comparison with the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiology synoptic scale.

Authors:  Inez Yeo; Judith Akwo; Ernest Ekpo
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2020-05-29

7.  A new automated method to evaluate 2D mammographic breast density according to BI-RADS® Atlas Fifth Edition recommendations.

Authors:  Corinne Balleyguier; Julia Arfi-Rouche; Bruno Boyer; Emilien Gauthier; Valerie Helin; Ara Loshkajian; Stephane Ragusa; Suzette Delaloge
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-02-15       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  Comparison of Clinical and Automated Breast Density Measurements: Implications for Risk Prediction and Supplemental Screening.

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

9.  Misclassification of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) Mammographic Density and Implications for Breast Density Reporting Legislation.

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

10.  Comparison of mammographic density assessed as volumes and areas among women undergoing diagnostic image-guided breast biopsy.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.