Literature DB >> 26870747

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

Mohamed Abdolell1, Kaitlyn Tsuruda2, Christopher B Lightfoot1, Eva Barkova3, Melanie McQuaid4, Judy Caines5, Sian E Iles1.   

Abstract

Discussions of percent breast density (PD) and breast cancer risk implicitly assume that visual assessments of PD are comparable between vendors despite differences in technology and display algorithms. This study examines the extent to which visual assessments of PD differ between mammograms acquired from two vendors. Pairs of "for presentation" digital mammography images were obtained from two mammography units for 146 women who had a screening mammogram on one vendor unit followed by a diagnostic mammogram on a different vendor unit. Four radiologists independently visually assessed PD from single left mediolateral oblique view images from the two vendors. Analysis of variance, intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC), scatter plots, and Bland-Altman plots were used to evaluate PD assessments between vendors. The mean radiologist PD for each image was used as a consensus PD measure. Overall agreement of the PD assessments was excellent between the two vendors with an ICC of 0.95 (95% confidence interval: 0.93 to 0.97). Bland-Altman plots demonstrated narrow upper and lower limits of agreement between the vendors with only a small bias (2.3 percentage points). The results of this study support the assumption that visual assessment of PD is consistent across mammography vendors despite vendor-specific appearances of "for presentation" images.

Entities:  

Keywords:  agreement; digital mammography; mammographic density; reader variability

Year:  2015        PMID: 26870747      PMCID: PMC4748145          DOI: 10.1117/1.JMI.3.1.011004

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


  13 in total

1.  A longitudinal study of the effects of menopause on mammographic features.

Authors:  Norman Boyd; Lisa Martin; Jennifer Stone; Laurie Little; Salomon Minkin; Martin Yaffe
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 4.254

2.  Quasi-continuous and discrete confidence rating scales for observer performance studies: Effects on ROC analysis.

Authors:  Lubomir Hadjiiski; Heang-Ping Chan; Berkman Sahiner; Mark A Helvie; Marilyn A Roubidoux
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 3.173

3.  Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer.

Authors:  Norman F Boyd; Helen Guo; Lisa J Martin; Limei Sun; Jennifer Stone; Eve Fishell; Roberta A Jong; Greg Hislop; Anna Chiarelli; Salomon Minkin; Martin J Yaffe
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2007-01-18       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Mammographic density measurements are not affected by mammography system.

Authors:  Christine N Damases; Patrick C Brennan; Mark F McEntee
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2015-03-04

5.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.

Authors:  J R Landis; G G Koch
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1977-03       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  Reported mammographic density: film-screen versus digital acquisition.

Authors:  Jennifer A Harvey; Charlotte C Gard; Diana L Miglioretti; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana S M Buist; Berta A Geller; Tracy L Onega
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-12-18       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Wolfe's parenchymal pattern and percentage of the breast with mammographic densities: redundant or complementary classifications?

Authors:  Jacques Brisson; Caroline Diorio; Benoît Mâsse
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 4.254

8.  Volumetric breast composition analysis: reproducibility of breast percent density and fibroglandular tissue volume measurements in serial mammograms.

Authors:  Florian Engelken; Jasmin-Maya Singh; Eva-Maria Fallenberg; Ulrich Bick; Joachim Böttcher; Diane Miriam Renz
Journal:  Acta Radiol       Date:  2013-07-22       Impact factor: 1.990

9.  Reader variability in breast density estimation from full-field digital mammograms: the effect of image postprocessing on relative and absolute measures.

Authors:  Brad M Keller; Diane L Nathan; Sara C Gavenonis; Jinbo Chen; Emily F Conant; Despina Kontos
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2013-03-05       Impact factor: 3.173

10.  Comparison of percent density from raw and processed full-field digital mammography data.

Authors:  Celine M Vachon; Erin Ee Fowler; Gail Tiffenberg; Christopher G Scott; V Shane Pankratz; Thomas A Sellers; John J Heine
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2013-01-04       Impact factor: 6.466

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.