Inez Yeo1, Judith Akwo2, Ernest Ekpo1,2. 1. The University of Sydney, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Discipline of Medical Imaging Science, Medical Image Optimisation and Perception Group, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 2. Orange Radiology, Laboratories and Research Centre, Calabar, Nigeria.
Abstract
Purpose: This technology evaluation study assesses the limits of agreement between the mammographic density (MD) measurement of Quantra™ from different breasts and mammographic views and its agreement with the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists (RANZCR) synoptic scale. Approach: MD of 800 women was assessed by Quantra™ and seven radiologists using the RANZCR synoptic scale. Bland-Altman analysis was used to assess the limits of agreement between Quantra™ MD measures from both breasts and mammographic views. The agreement between Quantra™ and the RANZCR synoptic scale was assessed using weighted kappa ( K w ). The receiver operating characteristics area under the curve (AUC) was used to assess the performance of Quantra™ in reproducing RANZCR MD ratings. Results: There was no significant bias in the mean MD of Quantra™ from both breasts: left versus right craniocaudal (CC) views ( B = - 0.14 ; p = 0.36 ) and right versus left mediolateral oblique (MLO) ( B = - 0.021 ; p = 0.18 ). However, MD measures from the same breast but different views showed significant bias: right CC versus right MLO ( B = 0.064 ; p < 0.0001 ) and left CC versus left MLO ( B = 0.56 ; p < 0.0001 ). Quantra™ demonstrated substantial agreement with the RANZCR synoptic scale on four- and two-category scales ( K w = 0.62 ; 0.59 to 0.66 and 0.76; 0.72 to 0.81, respectively). Quantra™ better reproduced the RANZCR synoptic scale on a two-category scale ( AUC = 0.88 ; 0.84 to 0.91) than a four-category scale ( AUC = 0.62 ; 0.58 to 0.67 to 0.78; 0.74 to 0.82). Conclusions: Quantra™ reproduces MD classification using the RANZCR synoptic scale on a two-category scale and should help in identification of women with dense breasts who may need adjunctive imaging for early detection of breast cancer.
Purpose: This technology evaluation study assesses the limits of agreement between the mammographic density (MD) measurement of Quantra™ from different breasts and mammographic views and its agreement with the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists (RANZCR) synoptic scale. Approach: MD of 800 women was assessed by Quantra™ and seven radiologists using the RANZCR synoptic scale. Bland-Altman analysis was used to assess the limits of agreement between Quantra™ MD measures from both breasts and mammographic views. The agreement between Quantra™ and the RANZCR synoptic scale was assessed using weighted kappa ( K w ). The receiver operating characteristics area under the curve (AUC) was used to assess the performance of Quantra™ in reproducing RANZCR MD ratings. Results: There was no significant bias in the mean MD of Quantra™ from both breasts: left versus right craniocaudal (CC) views ( B = - 0.14 ; p = 0.36 ) and right versus left mediolateral oblique (MLO) ( B = - 0.021 ; p = 0.18 ). However, MD measures from the same breast but different views showed significant bias: right CC versus right MLO ( B = 0.064 ; p < 0.0001 ) and left CC versus left MLO ( B = 0.56 ; p < 0.0001 ). Quantra™ demonstrated substantial agreement with the RANZCR synoptic scale on four- and two-category scales ( K w = 0.62 ; 0.59 to 0.66 and 0.76; 0.72 to 0.81, respectively). Quantra™ better reproduced the RANZCR synoptic scale on a two-category scale ( AUC = 0.88 ; 0.84 to 0.91) than a four-category scale ( AUC = 0.62 ; 0.58 to 0.67 to 0.78; 0.74 to 0.82). Conclusions: Quantra™ reproduces MD classification using the RANZCR synoptic scale on a two-category scale and should help in identification of women with dense breasts who may need adjunctive imaging for early detection of breast cancer.
Authors: Kathleen R Brandt; Christopher G Scott; Lin Ma; Amir P Mahmoudzadeh; Matthew R Jensen; Dana H Whaley; Fang Fang Wu; Serghei Malkov; Carrie B Hruska; Aaron D Norman; John Heine; John Shepherd; V Shane Pankratz; Karla Kerlikowske; Celine M Vachon Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-12-22 Impact factor: 11.105
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