Literature DB >> 25373436

How does semi-automated computer-derived CT measure of breast density compare with subjective assessments to assess mean glandular breast density, in patients with breast cancer?

G J Bansal1, S Kotugodella.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: (a) To compare radiologists' breast mammographic density readings with CT subjective measures. (b) To correlate computer-derived measurement of CT density with subjective assessments. (c) To evaluate density distributions in this cohort of patients with breast cancer.
METHODS: A retrospective review of mammograms and CT scans in 77 patients with breast cancer obtained within 1 year of each other was performed. Two radiologists independently reviewed both CT and mammograms and classified each case into four categories as defined by the breast imaging-reporting and data system of the American College of Radiology. Inter-reader agreements were obtained for both mammographic and CT density subjective evaluations by using the Cohen-weighted kappa statistic and Spearman correlation. The semi-automated computer-derived measurement of breast density was correlated with visual measurements.
RESULTS: Inter-reader agreements were lower for subjective CT density grades than those for mammographic readings 0.428 [confidence interval (CI), 0.24-0.89] vs 0.571 (CI, 0.35-0.76). There was moderately good correlation between subjective CT density grades and the mammographic density grades for both readers (0.760 for Reader 1 and 0.913 for Reader 2). The semi-automated CT density measurement correlated well with the subjective assessments, with complete agreement of the density grades in 84.9% of patients and only one level difference in the rest.
CONCLUSIONS: Semi-automated CT density measurements in the evaluation of breast density correlated well with subjective mammographic density measurement. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: There is good correlation between CT and mammographic density, but further studies are needed on how to incorporate semi-automated CT breast density measurement in the risk stratification of patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25373436      PMCID: PMC4243208          DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20140530

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Radiol        ISSN: 0007-1285            Impact factor:   3.039


  17 in total

1.  Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: inter- and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment.

Authors:  W A Berg; C Campassi; P Langenberg; M J Sexton
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  What we can and cannot see coming.

Authors:  Christoph I Lee; Howard P Forman
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Classification of breast computed tomography data.

Authors:  Thomas R Nelson; Laura I Cerviño; John M Boone; Karen K Lindfors
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Quantitative analysis for breast density estimation in low dose chest CT scans.

Authors:  Woo Kyung Moon; Chung-Ming Lo; Jin Mo Goo; Min Sun Bae; Jung Min Chang; Chiun-Sheng Huang; Jeon-Hor Chen; Violeta Ivanova; Ruey-Feng Chang
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2014-03-19       Impact factor: 4.460

5.  Measurement of thoracic bone mineral density with quantitative CT.

Authors:  Matthew J Budoff; Yasmin S Hamirani; Yanlin L Gao; Hussain Ismaeel; Ferdinand R Flores; Janis Child; Sivi Carson; James N Nee; Songshou Mao
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-08-31       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Ordinal scoring of coronary artery calcifications on low-dose CT scans of the chest is predictive of death from cardiovascular disease.

Authors:  Joseph Shemesh; Claudia I Henschke; Dorith Shaham; Rowena Yip; Ali O Farooqi; Matthew D Cham; Dorothy I McCauley; Mildred Chen; James P Smith; Daniel M Libby; Mark W Pasmantier; David F Yankelevitz
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-09-09       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 7.  Mammographic density: a heritable risk factor for breast cancer.

Authors:  Norman F Boyd; Lisa J Martin; Johanna M Rommens; Andrew D Paterson; Salomon Minkin; Martin J Yaffe; Jennifer Stone; John L Hopper
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2009

8.  Parenchymal texture analysis in digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer risk estimation: a preliminary study.

Authors:  Despina Kontos; Predrag R Bakic; Ann-Katherine Carton; Andrea B Troxel; Emily F Conant; Andrew D A Maidment
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 3.173

9.  Endogenous hormone levels, mammographic density, and subsequent risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women.

Authors:  Rulla M Tamimi; Celia Byrne; Graham A Colditz; Susan E Hankinson
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2007-07-24       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  Assessing individual breast cancer risk within the U.K. National Health Service Breast Screening Program: a new paradigm for cancer prevention.

Authors:  D Gareth R Evans; Jane Warwick; Susan M Astley; Paula Stavrinos; Sarah Sahin; Sarah Ingham; Helen McBurney; Barbara Eckersley; Michelle Harvie; Mary Wilson; Ursula Beetles; Ruth Warren; Alan Hufton; Jamie C Sergeant; William G Newman; Iain Buchan; Jack Cuzick; Anthony Howell
Journal:  Cancer Prev Res (Phila)       Date:  2012-05-11
View more
  1 in total

1.  Automated Breast Density Measurements From Chest Computed Tomography Scans.

Authors:  Touseef A Qureshi; Harini Veeraraghavan; Janice S Sung; Jennifer B Kaplan; Jessica Flynn; Emily S Tonorezos; Suzanne L Wolden; Elizabeth A Morris; Kevin C Oeffinger; Malcolm C Pike; Chaya S Moskowitz
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2019-06-22       Impact factor: 4.460

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.