Literature DB >> 30888933

Effect of Mammographic Screening Modality on Breast Density Assessment: Digital Mammography versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.

Aimilia Gastounioti1, Anne Marie McCarthy1, Lauren Pantalone1, Marie Synnestvedt1, Despina Kontos1, Emily F Conant1.   

Abstract

Background Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) breast density categories assigned by interpreting radiologists often influence decisions surrounding supplemental breast cancer screening and risk assessment. The landscape of mammographic screening continuously evolves, and different mammographic screening modalities may result in different perception of density, reflected in different assignment of BI-RADS density categories. Purpose To investigate the effect of screening mammography modality on BI-RADS breast density assessments. Materials and Methods Data were retrospectively analyzed from 24 736 individual women (42.3% [10 455 of 24 736] white women, 57.7% [14 281 of 24 736] black women; mean age, 56.3 years; age range, 40.0-74.9 years) who underwent from one to seven mammographic screening examinations from September 2010 through February 2017 (60 766 examinations). Three screening modalities were used: digital mammography alone (8935 examinations); digital mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT; 30 779 examinations); and synthetic mammography with DBT (21 052 examinations). Random-effects logistic regression analysis was performed to estimate the likelihood of assignment to high versus low BI-RADS density category according to each modality, adjusted for ethnicity, age, body mass index (BMI), and radiologist. The interactions of modality with ethnicity and BMI on density categorization were also tested with the model. Results Women screened with DBT versus digital mammography alone had lower likelihood regarding categorization of high density breasts (digital mammography and DBT vs digital mammography: odds ratio, 0.69 [95% confidence interval: 0.61, 0.80], P < .001; synthetic mammography and DBT vs digital mammography: odds ratio, 0.43 [95% confidence interval: 0.37, 0.50], P < .001). Lower likelihood of high density was also observed at synthetic mammography and DBT compared with digital mammography and DBT (odds ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval: 0.56, 0.69; P < .001). There were interactions of modality with ethnicity (P = .007) and BMI (P = .003) on breast density assessment, with greater differences in density categorization according to modality observed for black women than for white women and groups with higher BMI. Conclusion Breast density categorization may vary by screening mammographic modality, and this effect appears to vary by ethnicity and body mass index. © RSNA, 2019 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Philpotts in this issue.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30888933      PMCID: PMC6493215          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2019181740

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   29.146


  32 in total

1.  Imaging With Synthesized 2D Mammography: Differences, Advantages, and Pitfalls Compared With Digital Mammography.

Authors:  Samantha P Zuckerman; Andrew D A Maidment; Susan P Weinstein; Elizabeth S McDonald; Emily F Conant
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2017-05-02       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  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

3.  Automated Volumetric Analysis of Mammographic Density in a Screening Setting: Worse Outcomes for Women with Dense Breasts.

Authors:  Nataliia Moshina; Sofie Sebuødegård; Christoph I Lee; Lars A Akslen; Kaitlyn M Tsuruda; Joann G Elmore; Solveig Hofvind
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2018-06-26       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 4.  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

Review 5.  Mammographic breast density as an intermediate phenotype for breast cancer.

Authors:  Norman F Boyd; Johanna M Rommens; Kelly Vogt; Vivian Lee; John L Hopper; Martin J Yaffe; Andrew D Paterson
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 41.316

6.  Clinical Performance of Synthesized Two-dimensional Mammography Combined with Tomosynthesis in a Large Screening Population.

Authors:  Mireille P Aujero; Sara C Gavenonis; Ron Benjamin; Zugui Zhang; Jacqueline S Holt
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2017-02-21       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Racial Differences in Quantitative Measures of Area and Volumetric Breast Density.

Authors:  Anne Marie McCarthy; Brad M Keller; Lauren M Pantalone; Meng-Kang Hsieh; Marie Synnestvedt; Emily F Conant; Katrina Armstrong; Despina Kontos
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2016-04-29       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography.

Authors:  Sarah M Friedewald; Elizabeth A Rafferty; Stephen L Rose; Melissa A Durand; Donna M Plecha; Julianne S Greenberg; Mary K Hayes; Debra S Copit; Kara L Carlson; Thomas M Cink; Lora D Barke; Linda N Greer; Dave P Miller; Emily F Conant
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2014-06-25       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Baseline Screening Mammography: Performance of Full-Field Digital Mammography Versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Elizabeth S McDonald; Anne Marie McCarthy; Amana L Akhtar; Marie B Synnestvedt; Mitchell Schnall; Emily F Conant
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 3.959

10.  Association between mammographic breast density and histologic features of benign breast disease.

Authors:  Karthik Ghosh; Robert A Vierkant; Ryan D Frank; Stacey Winham; Daniel W Visscher; Vernon S Pankratz; Christopher G Scott; Kathleen Brandt; Mark E Sherman; Derek C Radisky; Marlene H Frost; Lynn C Hartmann; Amy C Degnim; Celine M Vachon
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2017-12-19       Impact factor: 6.466

View more
  3 in total

1.  Fully Automated Volumetric Breast Density Estimation from Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Aimilia Gastounioti; Lauren Pantalone; Christopher G Scott; Eric A Cohen; Fang F Wu; Stacey J Winham; Matthew R Jensen; Andrew D A Maidment; Celine M Vachon; Emily F Conant; Despina Kontos
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2021-09-14       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Persistent inter-observer variability of breast density assessment using BI-RADS® 5th edition guidelines.

Authors:  Leah H Portnow; Dianne Georgian-Smith; Irfanullah Haider; Mirelys Barrios; Camden P Bay; Kerrie P Nelson; Sughra Raza
Journal:  Clin Imaging       Date:  2021-12-10       Impact factor: 1.605

3.  Fibroglandular tissue distribution in the breast during mammography and tomosynthesis based on breast CT data: A patient-based characterization of the breast parenchyma.

Authors:  Christian Fedon; Marco Caballo; Eloy García; Oliver Diaz; John M Boone; David R Dance; Ioannis Sechopoulos
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2021-02-03       Impact factor: 4.506

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.