Ernest U Ekpo1,2, Mark F McEntee1, Mary Rickard1,3, Patrick C Brennan1, Jyotsna Kunduri3, Delgermaa Demchig1, Claudia Mello-Thoms1. 1. 1 Discipline of Medical Radiation Sciences in the Faculty of Health Sciences and the Brain and Mind Research Institute, The University of Sydney, Australia. 2. 2 Department of Radiography and Radiology, University of Calabar, Calabar, Nigeria. 3. 3 Sydney Breast Clinic, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the agreement between Quantra™ (Hologic Inc., Bedford, MA) and Breast Imaging Reporting and Data Systems (BI-RADS(®)) and the performance of Quantra at reproducing BI-RADS mammographic breast density (MBD) assessment. METHODS: MBD assessment was performed using Quantra and BI-RADS. BI-RADS assessment was performed in two phases (1314 and 292 cases, respectively). Kappa was used to assess the interreader agreement and the agreement between Quantra and BI-RADS, and receiver-operating characteristics analysis was used to assess the performance of Quantra at reproducing BI-RADS rating. RESULTS: Agreement (weighted kappa) between BI-RADS and Quantra in Phase 1 was 0.75 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.73-0.78] and 0.85 (95% CI: 0.80-0.90) on four- and two-grade scales, respectively. The corresponding agreement in Phase 2 was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.75-0.84) and 0.84 (95% CI: 0.79-0.87) using the majority report. In Phase 1, Quantra demonstrated 93.2% sensitivity and 86.1% specificity for BI-RADS on a two-grade scale (1-2 vs 3-4). In Phase 2, it demonstrated 91.3% sensitivity and 83.6% specificity on a two-grade scale. CONCLUSION: Quantra is limited in reproducing BI-RADS rating on a four-grade scale; however, it highly reproduces BI-RADS assessment on a two-grade scale. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Quantra (v. 2.0) is a poor predictor of BI-RADS assessment on a four-grade scale, but well reproduces BI-RADS rating on a two-grade scale. Therefore, it should be considered a tool for two-grade scale MBD classification.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the agreement between Quantra™ (Hologic Inc., Bedford, MA) and Breast Imaging Reporting and Data Systems (BI-RADS(®)) and the performance of Quantra at reproducing BI-RADS mammographic breast density (MBD) assessment. METHODS: MBD assessment was performed using Quantra and BI-RADS. BI-RADS assessment was performed in two phases (1314 and 292 cases, respectively). Kappa was used to assess the interreader agreement and the agreement between Quantra and BI-RADS, and receiver-operating characteristics analysis was used to assess the performance of Quantra at reproducing BI-RADS rating. RESULTS: Agreement (weighted kappa) between BI-RADS and Quantra in Phase 1 was 0.75 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.73-0.78] and 0.85 (95% CI: 0.80-0.90) on four- and two-grade scales, respectively. The corresponding agreement in Phase 2 was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.75-0.84) and 0.84 (95% CI: 0.79-0.87) using the majority report. In Phase 1, Quantra demonstrated 93.2% sensitivity and 86.1% specificity for BI-RADS on a two-grade scale (1-2 vs 3-4). In Phase 2, it demonstrated 91.3% sensitivity and 83.6% specificity on a two-grade scale. CONCLUSION: Quantra is limited in reproducing BI-RADS rating on a four-grade scale; however, it highly reproduces BI-RADS assessment on a two-grade scale. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Quantra (v. 2.0) is a poor predictor of BI-RADS assessment on a four-grade scale, but well reproduces BI-RADS rating on a two-grade scale. Therefore, it should be considered a tool for two-grade scale MBD classification.
Authors: D Bernardi; M Pellegrini; S Di Michele; P Tuttobene; C Fantò; M Valentini; M Gentilini; S Ciatto Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2012-01-07 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Norman Boyd; Lisa Martin; Anoma Gunasekara; Olga Melnichouk; Gord Maudsley; Chris Peressotti; Martin Yaffe; Salomon Minkin Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Amanda Eng; Zoe Gallant; John Shepherd; Valerie McCormack; Jingmei Li; Mitch Dowsett; Sarah Vinnicombe; Steve Allen; Isabel dos-Santos-Silva Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2014-09-20 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: Salem Alowami; Sandra Troup; Sahar Al-Haddad; Iain Kirkpatrick; Peter H Watson Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2003-07-23 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: Daniëlle van der Waal; Gerard J den Heeten; Ruud M Pijnappel; Klaas H Schuur; Johanna M H Timmers; André L M Verbeek; Mireille J M Broeders Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-09-03 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Gloria Richard-Davis; Brianna Whittemore; Anthony Disher; Valerie Montgomery Rice; Rathinasamy B Lenin; Camille Dollins; Eric R Siegel; Hari Eswaran Journal: Breast Cancer (Auckl) Date: 2018-02-22