Literature DB >> 30624682

Trends in Clinical Breast Density Assessment From the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

B L Sprague1, K Kerlikowske2, E J A Bowles3, G H Rauscher4, C I Lee5, A N A Tosteson6, D L Miglioretti7.   

Abstract

Changes to mammography practice, including revised Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) density classification guidelines and implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), may impact clinical breast density assessment. We investigated temporal trends in clinical breast density assessment among 2 990 291 digital mammography (DM) screens and 221 063 DBT screens interpreted by 722 radiologists from 144 facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. After age-standardization, 46.3% (95% CI = 44.1% to 48.6%) of DM screens were assessed as dense (heterogeneously/extremely dense) during the BI-RADS 4th edition era (2005-2013), compared to 46.5% (95% CI = 43.8% to 49.1%) during the 5th edition era (2014-2016) (P = .93 from two-sided generalized score test). Among DBT screens in the BI-RADS 5th edition era, 45.8% (95% CI = 42.0% to 49.7%) were assessed as dense (P = .77 from two-sided generalized score test) compared to 46.5% (95% CI = 43.8% to 49.1%) dense on DM in BI-RADS 5th edition era. Results were similar when examining all four density categories and age subgroups. Clinicians, researchers, and policymakers may reasonably expect stable density distributions across screened populations despite changes to the BI-RADS guidelines and implementation of DBT.
© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30624682      PMCID: PMC6579740          DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djy210

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst        ISSN: 0027-8874            Impact factor:   13.506


  21 in total

1.  Estimation of percentage breast tissue density: comparison between digital mammography (2D full field digital mammography) and digital breast tomosynthesis according to different BI-RADS categories.

Authors:  A S Tagliafico; G Tagliafico; F Cavagnetto; M Calabrese; N Houssami
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2013-09-12       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Changes in Breast Density Reporting Patterns of Radiologists After Publication of the 5th Edition BI-RADS Guidelines: A Single Institution Experience.

Authors:  Abid Irshad; Rebecca Leddy; Madelene Lewis; Abbie Cluver; Susan Ackerman; Dag Pavic; Heather Collins
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2017-08-10       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  Comparison of Breast Density Between Synthesized Versus Standard Digital Mammography.

Authors:  Irfanullah Haider; Matthew Morgan; Anna McGow; Matthew Stein; Maryam Rezvani; Phoebe Freer; Nan Hu; Laurie Fajardo; Nicole Winkler
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2018-06-12       Impact factor: 5.532

4.  Comparison Between Digital and Synthetic 2D Mammograms in Breast Density Interpretation.

Authors:  Taghreed I Alshafeiy; Antoine Wadih; Brandi T Nicholson; Carrie M Rochman; Heather R Peppard; James T Patrie; Jennifer A Harvey
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2017-05-15       Impact factor: 3.959

5.  Implementation of Synthesized Two-dimensional Mammography in a Population-based Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Program.

Authors:  Samantha P Zuckerman; Emily F Conant; Brad M Keller; Andrew D A Maidment; Bruno Barufaldi; Susan P Weinstein; Marie Synnestvedt; Elizabeth S McDonald
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2016-07-28       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: A Brave New World of Mammography Screening.

Authors:  Nehmat Houssami; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2016-06-01       Impact factor: 31.777

Review 7.  Beyond BI-RADS Density: A Call for Quantification in the Breast Imaging Clinic.

Authors:  Emily F Conant; Brian L Sprague; Despina Kontos
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Reliability of automated breast density measurements.

Authors:  Olivier Alonzo-Proulx; Gordon E Mawdsley; James T Patrie; Martin J Yaffe; Jennifer A Harvey
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2015-02-25       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 9.  Breast density legislation: mandatory disclosure to patients, alternative screening, billing, reimbursement.

Authors:  Kimberly M Ray; Elissa R Price; Bonnie N Joe
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 3.959

10.  Comparison of inter- and intra-observer variability of breast density assessments using the fourth and fifth editions of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System.

Authors:  Afsaneh Alikhassi; Hamed Esmaili Gourabi; Masoud Baikpour
Journal:  Eur J Radiol Open       Date:  2018-04-20
View more
  5 in total

1.  Comparing Mammographic Density Assessed by Digital Breast Tomosynthesis or Digital Mammography: The Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

Authors:  Jeffrey A Tice; Charlotte C Gard; Diana L Miglioretti; Brian L Sprague; Anna N A Tosteson; Bonnie N Joe; Thao-Quyen H Ho; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2021-11-23       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Interval breast cancer risk associations with breast density, family history and breast tissue aging.

Authors:  Tuong L Nguyen; Shuai Li; Gillian S Dite; Ye K Aung; Christopher F Evans; Ho N Trinh; Laura Baglietto; Jennifer Stone; Yun-Mi Song; Joohon Sung; Dallas R English; Mark A Jenkins; Pierre-Antoine Dugué; Roger L Milne; Melissa C Southey; Graham G Giles; Malcolm C Pike; John L Hopper
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2019-11-12       Impact factor: 7.396

3.  Diagnostic value of artificial intelligence automatic detection systems for breast BI-RADS 4 nodules.

Authors:  Shu-Yi Lyu; Yan Zhang; Mei-Wu Zhang; Bai-Song Zhang; Li-Bo Gao; Lang-Tao Bai; Jue Wang
Journal:  World J Clin Cases       Date:  2022-01-14       Impact factor: 1.337

4.  Breast cancer screening in women with extremely dense breasts recommendations of the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI).

Authors:  Ritse M Mann; Alexandra Athanasiou; Pascal A T Baltzer; Julia Camps-Herrero; Paola Clauser; Eva M Fallenberg; Gabor Forrai; Michael H Fuchsjäger; Thomas H Helbich; Fleur Killburn-Toppin; Mihai Lesaru; Pietro Panizza; Federica Pediconi; Ruud M Pijnappel; Katja Pinker; Francesco Sardanelli; Tamar Sella; Isabelle Thomassin-Naggara; Sophia Zackrisson; Fiona J Gilbert; Christiane K Kuhl
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2022-03-08       Impact factor: 7.034

5.  Environmental Influences on Mammographic Breast Density in California: A Strategy to Reduce Breast Cancer Risk.

Authors:  Barbara A Cohn; Mary Beth Terry
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2019-11-27       Impact factor: 3.390

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.