G J Bansal1, S Kotugodella. 1. The Breast Centre, University Hospital of Llandough, Penarth, UK.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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