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 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Insights into Imaging
Published in: Insights into Imaging 1/2012

Open Access 01-02-2012 | Original Article

Density is in the eye of the beholder: visual versus semi-automated assessment of breast density on standard mammograms

Authors: M. B. I. Lobbes, J. P. M. Cleutjens, V. Lima Passos, C. Frotscher, M. J. Lahaye, K. B. M. I. Keymeulen, R. G. Beets-Tan, J. Wildberger, C. Boetes

Published in: Insights into Imaging | Issue 1/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

Visual inspection is generally used to assess breast density. Our study aim was to compare visual assessment of breast density of experienced and inexperienced readers with semi-automated analysis of breast density.

Methods

Breast density was assessed by an experienced and an inexperienced reader in 200 mammograms and scored according to the quantitative BI-RADS classification. Breast density was also assessed by dedicated software using a semi-automated thresholding technique. Agreement between breast density classification of both readers as well as agreement between their assessment versus the semi-automated analysis as reference standard was expressed as the weighted kappa value.

Results

Using the semi-automated analysis, agreement between breast density measurements of both breasts in both projections was excellent (ICC >0.9, P < 0.0001). Reproducibility of the semi-automated analysis was excellent (ICC >0.8, P < 0.0001). The experienced reader correctly classified the BI-RADS breast density classification in 58.5% of the cases. Classification was overestimated in 35.5% of the cases and underestimated in 6.0% of the cases. Results of the inexperienced reader were less accurate. Agreement between the classification of both readers versus the semi-automated analysis was considered only moderate with weighted kappa values of 0.367 (experienced reader) and 0.232 (inexperienced reader).

Conclusion

Visual assessment of breast density on mammograms is inaccurate and observer-dependent.
Literature
1.
Yaffe MJ (2008) Measurement of mammographic density. Breast Canc Res 10:209–218CrossRef
2.
Wolfe JN (1976) Breast patterns as an index of risk for developing breast cancer. Am J Roentgenol 126:1130–1139CrossRef
3.
McCormack VA, Dos Santos SI (2006) Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 15:1159–1169CrossRef
4.
Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ, Sun L, Stone J et al (2007) Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 356:227–236PubMedCrossRef
5.
Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, Kerlikowske K, Rosenberg R et al (2003) Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 138:168–175PubMedCrossRef
6.
Buist DS, Porter PL, Lehman C, Taplin SH, White E (2004) Factors contributing to mammography failure in women aged 40–49 years. J Natl Cancer Inst 96:1432–1440PubMedCrossRef
7.
Gram IT, Funkhouser E, Tabar L (1997) The Tabar classification of mammographic parenchymal patterns. Eur J Radiol 24:131–136PubMedCrossRef
8.
D’Orsi CJ, Mendelson EB, Ikeda DM et al (2003) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) Atlas, 4th ed. American College of Radiology, Reston, VA
9.
Heine JJ, Carston MJ, Scott CG, Brandt KR, Wu F et al (2008) An automated approach for estimation of breast density. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 17:3090–3097CrossRef
10.
Byng JW, Yaffe MJ, Jong RA, Shumak RS, Lockwood GA et al (1998) Analysis of mammographic breast density and breast cancer risk from digitized mammograms. Radiographics 18:1587–1598PubMedCrossRef
11.
Hovhannisyan G, Chow L, Schlosser A, Yaffe MJ, Boyd NF et al (2009) Differences in measured mammographic density in the menstrual cycle. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 18:1993–1999CrossRef
12.
Aitken Z, McCormack VA, Highnam RP, Martin L, Gunasekara A et al (2010) Screen-film mammographic density and breast cancer risk: a comparison of the volumetric standard mammogram form and the interactive threshold measurements methods. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 19:418–428CrossRef
13.
Nicholson BT, LoRusso AP, Smolkin M, Bovbjerg VE, Petroni GR et al (2006) Accuracy of assigned BI-RADS breast density category definitions. Acad Radiol 13:1143–1149PubMedCrossRef
14.
Boetes C (2010) Update on screening breast MRI in high-risk women. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 18:241–247PubMedCrossRef
15.
Stone J, Ding J, Warren RML, Duffy SW (2010) Predicting breast cancer risk using mammographic density measurements from both mammogram sides and views. Breast Cancer Res Treat 24:551–554CrossRef
16.
Kerlikowske K, Cook AJ, Buist DSM, Cummings SR, Vachon C et al (2010) Breast cancer risk by breast density, menopause, and postmenopausal hormone therapy use. J Clin Oncol 28:3830–3837PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
17.
Martin KE, Helvie MA, Zhou C, Roubidoux MA, Bailey JE et al (2006) Mammographic density measured with quantitative computer-aided method: comparison with radiologists’ estimates and BI-RADS categories. Radiology 240:656–665PubMedCrossRef
18.
Pisano ED, Hendrick RE, Yaffe MJ, Baum JK, Acharyya S et al (2008) Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST. Radiology 246:376–383PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
19.
Kontos D, Bakic PR, Acciavatti RJ, Conant EF, Maidment ADA (2010) A comparative study of volumetric and area-based breast density estimation in digital mammography: results from a screening population. LNCS 6136:378–385
20.
Pinker K, Perry N, Milner S, Mokbel K, Duffy S (2010) Validation of a new automated volumetric breast density measurement system as a marker of breast density risk. Breast Canc Res 12(Suppl 3):O1CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Density is in the eye of the beholder: visual versus semi-automated assessment of breast density on standard mammograms
Authors
M. B. I. Lobbes
J. P. M. Cleutjens
V. Lima Passos
C. Frotscher
M. J. Lahaye
K. B. M. I. Keymeulen
R. G. Beets-Tan
J. Wildberger
C. Boetes
Publication date
01-02-2012
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Insights into Imaging / Issue 1/2012
Electronic ISSN: 1869-4101
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-011-0139-7

Other articles of this Issue 1/2012

Insights into Imaging 1/2012 Go to the issue

Original Article

Gonad shielding in paediatric pelvic radiography: disadvantages prevail over benefit

Original Article

Ultrafast imaging of the entire chest without ECG synchronisation or beta-blockade: to what extent can we analyse the coronary arteries?

Statement

Editorial on the revised European Training Charter for Clinical Radiology

Pictorial Review

Tomosynthesis in pulmonary cystic fibrosis with comparison to radiography and computed tomography: a pictorial review

Pictorial Review

Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography: the ABC of MRCP

Review

Current paradigm of the 18-kDa translocator protein (TSPO) as a molecular target for PET imaging in neuroinflammation and neurodegenerative diseases