Literature DB >> 26158085

Mammographic density measurements are not affected by mammography system.

Christine N Damases1, Patrick C Brennan2, Mark F McEntee2.   

Abstract

Mammographic density (MD) is a significant risk factor for breast cancer and has been shown to reduce the sensitivity of mammography screening. Knowledge of a woman's density can be used to predict her risk of developing breast cancer and personalize her imaging pathway. However, measurement of breast density has proven to be troublesome with wide variations in density recorded using radiologists' visual Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS). Several automated methods for assessing breast density have been proposed, each with their own source of measurement error. The use of differing mammographic imaging systems further complicates MD measurement, especially for the same women imaged over time. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether having a mammogram on differing manufacturer's equipment affects a woman's MD measurement. Raw mammographic images were acquired on two mammography imaging systems (General Electric and Hologic) one year apart and processed using VolparaDensity™ to obtain the Volpara Density Grade (VDG) and average volumetric breast density percentage (AvBD%). Visual BIRADS scores were also obtained from 20 expert readers. BIRADS scores for both systems showed strong positive correlation ([Formula: see text]; [Formula: see text]), while the VDG ([Formula: see text]; [Formula: see text]) and AvBD% ([Formula: see text]; [Formula: see text]) showed stronger positive correlations. Substantial agreement was shown between the systems for BIRADS ([Formula: see text]; [Formula: see text]), however, the systems demonstrated an almost perfect agreement for VDG ([Formula: see text]; [Formula: see text]).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System; General Electric; Hologic; Volpara; mammographic density

Year:  2015        PMID: 26158085      PMCID: PMC4478994          DOI: 10.1117/1.JMI.2.1.015501

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)        ISSN: 2329-4302


  23 in total

1.  Influence of anode/filter material and tube potential on contrast, signal-to-noise ratio and average absorbed dose in mammography: a Monte Carlo study.

Authors:  D R Dance; A K Thilander; M Sandborg; C L Skinner; I A Castellano; G A Carlsson
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Bias and prevalence effects on kappa viewed in terms of sensitivity and specificity.

Authors:  F K Hoehler
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 3.  The kappa statistic in reliability studies: use, interpretation, and sample size requirements.

Authors:  Julius Sim; Chris C Wright
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  2005-03

4.  A software tool for increased efficiency in observer performance studies in radiology.

Authors:  Sara Börjesson; Markus Håkansson; Magnus Båth; Susanne Kheddache; Sune Svensson; Anders Tingberg; Anna Grahn; Mark Ruschin; Bengt Hemdal; Sören Mattsson; Lars Gunnar Månsson
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 0.972

5.  A comparison of the performance of digital mammography systems.

Authors:  P Monnin; D Gutierrez; S Bulling; D Guntern; F R Verdun
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 4.071

6.  Investigation of the effect of anode/filter materials on the dose and image quality of a digital mammography system based on an amorphous selenium flat panel detector.

Authors:  P Baldelli; N Phelan; G Egan
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2009-12-17       Impact factor: 3.039

7.  A reappraisal of the kappa coefficient.

Authors:  W D Thompson; S D Walter
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 6.437

8.  Automated measurement of volumetric mammographic density: a tool for widespread breast cancer risk assessment.

Authors:  Judith S Brand; Kamila Czene; John A Shepherd; Karin Leifland; Boel Heddson; Ann Sundbom; Mikael Eriksson; Jingmei Li; Keith Humphreys; Per Hall
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2014-07-10       Impact factor: 4.254

9.  AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents: digital mammography: an overview.

Authors:  Mahadevappa Mahesh
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2004 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 5.333

10.  Interaction of dense breast patterns with other breast cancer risk factors in a case-control study.

Authors:  S W Duffy; R W Jakes; F C Ng; F Gao
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2004-07-19       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  5 in total

1.  Consistency of visual assessments of mammographic breast density from vendor-specific "for presentation" images.

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

2.  Breast parenchymal patterns in processed versus raw digital mammograms: A large population study toward assessing differences in quantitative measures across image representations.

Authors:  Aimilia Gastounioti; Andrew Oustimov; Brad M Keller; Lauren Pantalone; Meng-Kang Hsieh; Emily F Conant; Despina Kontos
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Mammographic density assessed on paired raw and processed digital images and on paired screen-film and digital images across three mammography systems.

Authors:  Anya Burton; Graham Byrnes; Jennifer Stone; Rulla M Tamimi; John Heine; Celine Vachon; Vahit Ozmen; Ana Pereira; Maria Luisa Garmendia; Christopher Scott; John H Hipwell; Caroline Dickens; Joachim Schüz; Mustafa Erkin Aribal; Kimberly Bertrand; Ava Kwong; Graham G Giles; John Hopper; Beatriz Pérez Gómez; Marina Pollán; Soo-Hwang Teo; Shivaani Mariapun; Nur Aishah Mohd Taib; Martín Lajous; Ruy Lopez-Riduara; Megan Rice; Isabelle Romieu; Anath Arzee Flugelman; Giske Ursin; Samera Qureshi; Huiyan Ma; Eunjung Lee; Reza Sirous; Mehri Sirous; Jong Won Lee; Jisun Kim; Dorria Salem; Rasha Kamal; Mikael Hartman; Hui Miao; Kee-Seng Chia; Chisato Nagata; Sudhir Vinayak; Rose Ndumia; Carla H van Gils; Johanna O P Wanders; Beata Peplonska; Agnieszka Bukowska; Steve Allen; Sarah Vinnicombe; Sue Moss; Anna M Chiarelli; Linda Linton; Gertraud Maskarinec; Martin J Yaffe; Norman F Boyd; Isabel Dos-Santos-Silva; Valerie A McCormack
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2016-12-19       Impact factor: 6.466

Review 4.  Qualitative Versus Quantitative Mammographic Breast Density Assessment: Applications for the US and Abroad.

Authors:  Stamatia Destounis; Andrea Arieno; Renee Morgan; Christina Roberts; Ariane Chan
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2017-05-31

5.  Mammographic density changes during neoadjuvant breast cancer treatment: NeoDense, a prospective study in Sweden.

Authors:  Ida Skarping; Daniel Förnvik; Uffe Heide-Jørgensen; Hanna Sartor; Per Hall; Sophia Zackrisson; Signe Borgquist
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2020-06-04       Impact factor: 4.380

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.