Ji Hyun Youk1, Hye Mi Gweon1, Eun Ju Son1, Jeong-Ah Kim1. 1. 1 Department of Radiology, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 211 Eonju-ro, Gangnam-Gu, Seoul 06273, South Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate automated volumetric measurements in comparison with visual assessment of mammographic breast density by use of the fifth edition of BI-RADS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 1185 full-field digital mammography examinations with standard views were retrospectively analyzed. All images were visually assessed by two blinded radiologists according to breast density category in the fifth edition of the BI-RADS lexicon. Automated volumetric breast density assessment was performed using two different software programs, Quantra and Volpara. A weighted kappa value was calculated to assess the degree of agreement among the visual and volumetric assessments of the density category. The volumes of fibroglandular tissue or total breast and the percentage breast density provided by the two software programs were compared. RESULTS: Compared with a visual assessment, the agreement of density category ranged from moderate to substantial in Quantra (κ = 0.54-0.61) and fair to moderate in Volpara (κ = 0.32-0.43). The distribution of density category was statistically significantly different among visual and volumetric measurements (p < 0.0001). Quantra assigned category A and B (43.5%) more frequently than did the radiologists (25.6%) or Volpara (16.0%). Volpara assigned category D (42.1%) more frequently than did the radiologists (19.5%) or Quantra (15.4%). Between the two software programs, the means of all volumetric data were statistically significantly different (p < 0.0001), but were well correlated (γ = 0.79-0.99; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: More mammographic examinations were classified as nondense breast tissue using the Quantra software and as dense breast tissue using the Volpara software, as compared with visual assessments according to the BI-RADS fifth edition.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate automated volumetric measurements in comparison with visual assessment of mammographic breast density by use of the fifth edition of BI-RADS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 1185 full-field digital mammography examinations with standard views were retrospectively analyzed. All images were visually assessed by two blinded radiologists according to breast density category in the fifth edition of the BI-RADS lexicon. Automated volumetric breast density assessment was performed using two different software programs, Quantra and Volpara. A weighted kappa value was calculated to assess the degree of agreement among the visual and volumetric assessments of the density category. The volumes of fibroglandular tissue or total breast and the percentage breast density provided by the two software programs were compared. RESULTS: Compared with a visual assessment, the agreement of density category ranged from moderate to substantial in Quantra (κ = 0.54-0.61) and fair to moderate in Volpara (κ = 0.32-0.43). The distribution of density category was statistically significantly different among visual and volumetric measurements (p < 0.0001). Quantra assigned category A and B (43.5%) more frequently than did the radiologists (25.6%) or Volpara (16.0%). Volpara assigned category D (42.1%) more frequently than did the radiologists (19.5%) or Quantra (15.4%). Between the two software programs, the means of all volumetric data were statistically significantly different (p < 0.0001), but were well correlated (γ = 0.79-0.99; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: More mammographic examinations were classified as nondense breast tissue using the Quantra software and as dense breast tissue using the Volpara software, as compared with visual assessments according to the BI-RADS fifth edition.
Entities:
Keywords:
breast; computer-assisted radiographic image interpretation; digital radiography; mammography; software
Authors: Leah C Henze Bancroft; Roberta M Strigel; Erin B Macdonald; Colin Longhurst; Jacob Johnson; Diego Hernando; Scott B Reeder Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2021-11-14 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Thomas P Matthews; Sadanand Singh; Brent Mombourquette; Jason Su; Meet P Shah; Stefano Pedemonte; Aaron Long; David Maffit; Jenny Gurney; Rodrigo Morales Hoil; Nikita Ghare; Douglas Smith; Stephen M Moore; Susan C Marks; Richard L Wahl Journal: Radiol Artif Intell Date: 2020-11-04
Authors: Louise M Henderson; Mary W Marsh; Kathryn Earnhardt; Michael Pritchard; Thad S Benefield; Robert P Agans; Sheila S Lee Journal: Cancer Date: 2020-09-14 Impact factor: 6.860