Shonket Ray1, Lin Chen1, Brad M Keller1, Jinbo Chen2, Emily F Conant1, Despina Kontos3. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, 1 Silverstein Bldg., 3400 Spruce St, Philadelphia PA 19104. 2. Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 3. Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, 1 Silverstein Bldg., 3400 Spruce St, Philadelphia PA 19104. Electronic address: Despina.Kontos@uphs.upenn.edu.
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: We investigate associations between measures of mammographic parenchymal complexity and false-positive (FP) recall from screening with digital mammography (DM) versus digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data from 541 women recruited by the American College of Radiology Imaging Network 4006 trial, designed to evaluate callback and detection rates from screening with DM versus combined DM and DBT. Of these, 68 and 56 were FPs based on DM alone versus the combined DM/DBT readings, respectively. Mammographic complexity was quantified with computerized texture analysis and percent density. Logistic regression was performed to evaluate associations between extracted features and FP recall, after adjusting for age and number of previous benign biopsies. Odds ratios and area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic were used to assess association strength. RESULTS: For DM, age, previous benign biopsies and texture features of correlation, inverse difference moment, sum average, and sum variance were deemed as significant predictors (P <.05) of FP recall, with an AUC = 0.77. For DBT, age was the only significant predictor of FP recall with AUC = 0.64. Using exploratory receiver operating characteristic thresholds for which no true-positives would be missed, a potential FP reduction of 23.5% and 8.9% was demonstrated, respectively, for DM alone versus DM/DBT. CONCLUSION: Measures of breast complexity measured on 2D digital mammograms are indicative of the likelihood for FP recall from screening with DM, and could help identify women who could benefit from supplemental screening, including DBT.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: We investigate associations between measures of mammographic parenchymal complexity and false-positive (FP) recall from screening with digital mammography (DM) versus digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data from 541 women recruited by the American College of Radiology Imaging Network 4006 trial, designed to evaluate callback and detection rates from screening with DM versus combined DM and DBT. Of these, 68 and 56 were FPs based on DM alone versus the combined DM/DBT readings, respectively. Mammographic complexity was quantified with computerized texture analysis and percent density. Logistic regression was performed to evaluate associations between extracted features and FP recall, after adjusting for age and number of previous benign biopsies. Odds ratios and area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic were used to assess association strength. RESULTS: For DM, age, previous benign biopsies and texture features of correlation, inverse difference moment, sum average, and sum variance were deemed as significant predictors (P <.05) of FP recall, with an AUC = 0.77. For DBT, age was the only significant predictor of FP recall with AUC = 0.64. Using exploratory receiver operating characteristic thresholds for which no true-positives would be missed, a potential FP reduction of 23.5% and 8.9% was demonstrated, respectively, for DM alone versus DM/DBT. CONCLUSION: Measures of breast complexity measured on 2D digital mammograms are indicative of the likelihood for FP recall from screening with DM, and could help identify women who could benefit from supplemental screening, including DBT.
Authors: Hui Li; Maryellen L Giger; Zhimin Huo; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Li Lan; Barbara L Weber; Ioana Bonta Journal: Med Phys Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Despina Kontos; Lynda C Ikejimba; Predrag R Bakic; Andrea B Troxel; Emily F Conant; Andrew D A Maidment Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-07-19 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Yuanjie Zheng; Brad M Keller; Shonket Ray; Yan Wang; Emily F Conant; James C Gee; Despina Kontos Journal: Med Phys Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: C L Christiansen; F Wang; M B Barton; W Kreuter; J G Elmore; A E Gelfand; S W Fletcher Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-10-18 Impact factor: 13.506
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: Peh Joo Ho; Chek Mei Bok; Hanis Mariyah Mohd Ishak; Li Yan Lim; Jenny Liu; Fuh Yong Wong; Kee Seng Chia; Min-Han Tan; Wen Yee Chay; Mikael Hartman; Jingmei Li Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-03-11 Impact factor: 3.240