Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Radiology
Published in: European Radiology 12/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Breast

Measuring mammographic density: comparing a fully automated volumetric assessment versus European radiologists’ qualitative classification

Authors: Hanna Sartor, Kristina Lång, Aldana Rosso, Signe Borgquist, Sophia Zackrisson, Pontus Timberg

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 12/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) mammographic density categories are associated with considerable interobserver variability. Automated methods of measuring volumetric breast density may reduce variability and be valuable in risk and mammographic screening stratification. Our objective was to assess agreement of mammographic density by a volumetric method with the radiologists’ classification.

Methods

Eight thousand seven hundred and eighty-two examinations from the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial were classified according to BI-RADS, 4th Edition. Volumetric breast density was assessed using automated software for 8433 examinations. Agreement between volumetric breast density and BI-RADS was descriptively analyzed. Agreement between radiologists and between categorical volumetric density and BI-RADS was calculated, rendering kappa values.

Results

The observed agreement between BI-RADS scores of different radiologists was 80.9 % [kappa 0.77 (0.76–0.79)]. A spread of volumetric breast density for each BI-RADS category was seen. The observed agreement between categorical volumetric density and BI-RADS scores was 57.1 % [kappa 0.55 (0.53-0.56)].

Conclusions

There was moderate agreement between volumetric density and BI-RADS scores from European radiologists indicating that radiologists evaluate mammographic density differently than software. The automated method may be a robust and valuable tool; however, differences in interpretation between radiologists and software require further investigation.

Key Points

• Agreement between qualitative and software density measurements has not been frequently studied.
• There was substantial agreement between different radiologists´ qualitative density assessments.
• There was moderate agreement between software and radiologists’ density assessments.
• Differences in interpretation between software and radiologists require further investigation.
Literature
1.
McCormack VA, dos Santos SI (2006) Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 15:1159–1169CrossRefPubMed
2.
Huo CW, Chew GL, Britt KL et al (2014) Mammographic density-a review on the current understanding of its association with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 144:479–502CrossRefPubMed
3.
4.
5.
D’Orsi CJSE, Mendelson EB, Morris EA et al (2013) ACR BI-RADS® Atlas, breast imaging reporting and data system. American College of Radiology, Reston
6.
Berg WA, Campassi C, Langenberg P, Sexton MJ (2000) Breast imaging reporting and data system: inter- and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 174:1769–1777CrossRefPubMed
7.
Ciatto S, Houssami N, Apruzzese A et al (2005) Categorizing breast mammographic density: intra- and interobserver reproducibility of BI-RADS density categories. Breast 14:269–275CrossRefPubMed
8.
Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J et al (1998) Variability and accuracy in mammographic interpretation using the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. J Natl Cancer Inst 90:1801–1809CrossRefPubMed
9.
Nicholson BT, LoRusso AP, Smolkin M, Bovbjerg VE, Petroni GR, Harvey JA (2006) Accuracy of assigned BI-RADS breast density category definitions. Acad Radiol 13:1143–1149CrossRefPubMed
10.
Ooms EA, Zonderland HM, Eijkemans MJC et al (2007) Mammography: interobserver variability in breast density assessment. Breast 16:568–576CrossRefPubMed
11.
Ciatto S, Bernardi D, Calabrese M et al (2012) A first evaluation of breast radiological density assessment by QUANTRA software as compared to visual classification. Breast 21:503–506CrossRefPubMed
12.
Sacchetto D, Morra L, Agliozzo S et al (2016) Mammographic density: comparison of visual assessment with fully automatic calculation on a multivendor dataset. Eur Radiol 26:175–183CrossRefPubMed
13.
Boyd NF, Martin LJ, Yaffe MJ, Minkin S (2011) Mammographic density and breast cancer risk: current understanding and future prospects. Breast Cancer Res 13:223CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Shepherd JA, Kerlikowske K, Ma L et al (2011) Volume of mammographic density and risk of breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 20:1473–1482CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Alonzo-Proulx O, Mawdsley GE, Patrie JT, Yaffe MJ, Harvey JA (2015) Reliability of automated breast density measurements. Radiology 275:366–376CrossRefPubMed
16.
Park IH, Ko K, Joo J et al (2014) High volumetric breast density predicts risk for breast cancer in postmenopausal, but not premenopausal, Korean women. Ann Surg Oncol 21:4124–4132CrossRefPubMed
17.
Eng A, Gallant Z, Shepherd J et al (2014) Digital mammographic density and breast cancer risk: a case inverted question mark control study of six alternative density assessment methods. Breast Cancer Res 16:439CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Gweon HM, Youk JH, Kim JA, Son EJ (2013) Radiologist assessment of breast density by BI-RADS categories versus fully automated volumetric assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 201:692–697CrossRefPubMed
19.
Seo JM, Ko ES, Han BK, Ko EY, Shin JH, Hahn SY (2013) Automated volumetric breast density estimation: a comparison with visual assessment. Clin Radiol 68:690–695CrossRefPubMed
20.
Lee HN, Sohn YM, Han KH (2014) Comparison of mammographic density estimation by Volpara software with radiologists' visual assessment: analysis of clinical-radiologic factors affecting discrepancy between them. Acta Radiol 56:1061–1068CrossRefPubMed
21.
van der Waal D, den Heeten GJ, Pijnappel RM et al (2015) Comparing visually assessed BI-RADS breast density and automated volumetric breast density software: a cross-sectional study in a breast cancer screening setting. PLoS One 10, e0136667CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Gubern-Merida A, Kallenberg M, Platel B, Mann RM, Marti R, Karssemeijer N (2014) Volumetric breast density estimation from full-field digital mammograms: a validation study. PLoS One 9, e85952CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
24.
Morrish OW, Tucker L, Black R, Willsher P, Duffy SW, Gilbert FJ (2015) Mammographic breast density: comparison of methods for quantitative evaluation. Radiology 275:356–365CrossRefPubMed
25.
Sandberg ME, Li J, Hall P et al (2013) Change of mammographic density predicts the risk of contralateral breast cancer--a case–control study. Breast Cancer Res 15:R57CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Cuzick J, Warwick J, Pinney E et al (2011) Tamoxifen-induced reduction in mammographic density and breast cancer risk reduction: a nested case–control study. J Natl Cancer Inst 103:744–752CrossRefPubMed
27.
Lang K, Andersson I, Rosso A, Tingberg A, Timberg P, Zackrisson S (2015) Performance of one-view breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone breast cancer screening modality: results from the Malmo Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial, a population-based study. Eur Radiol 26:184–190CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
29.
Highnam R, Brady S, Yaffe M, Karssemeijer N, Harvey J (2010) Robust breast composition measurement - VolparaTM. In: Martí J, Oliver A, Freixenet J, Martí R (eds) Digital mammography. Springer, Berlin, pp 342–349 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science)CrossRef
30.
Sun S (2011) Meta-analysis of Cohen’s Kappa. Health Serv Outcome Res Methodol 11:145–163CrossRef
31.
McHugh ML (2012) Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 22:276–282CrossRef
32.
Martin Bland J, Altman D (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 327:307–310CrossRef
33.
Rosso A (2015) Correlation does not mean agreement: why is it still used as a synonym of agreement? Radiology 276:617–619CrossRefPubMed
34.
Maskarinec G, Meng L, Ursin G (2001) Ethnic differences in mammographic densities. Int J Epidemiol 30:959–965CrossRefPubMed
35.
Wanders JO, Holland K, Veldhuis WB, Mann RM, Peeters PH, van Gils CH, Karssemeijer N (2015) Effect of volumetric mammographic density on performance of a breast cancer screening program using full-field digital mammography. European Congress of Radiology, Vienna
Metadata
Title
Measuring mammographic density: comparing a fully automated volumetric assessment versus European radiologists’ qualitative classification
Authors
Hanna Sartor
Kristina Lång
Aldana Rosso
Signe Borgquist
Sophia Zackrisson
Pontus Timberg
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 12/2016
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4309-3

Other articles of this Issue 12/2016

European Radiology 12/2016 Go to the issue

Chest

CT screening for lung cancer: Frequency of enlarged adrenal glands identified in baseline and annual repeat rounds

Musculoskeletal

Adipose tissue and muscle attenuation as novel biomarkers predicting mortality in patients with extremity sarcomas

Computed Tomography

Sectional Localization of a Small Hepatocellular Carcinoma in the Right Hepatic Lobe by Computed Tomography: Comparison between the Conventional and Portal Vein Tracing Methods

Head and Neck

Combining standardized uptake value of FDG-PET and apparent diffusion coefficient of DW-MRI improves risk stratification in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma

Cardiac

High levels of thyroid-stimulating hormone are associated with aortic wall thickness in the general population

Musculoskeletal

Quantitative assessment of morphology, T1ρ, and T2 of shoulder cartilage using MRI