Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Radiology 1/2016

01-01-2016 | Breast

Mammographic density: Comparison of visual assessment with fully automatic calculation on a multivendor dataset

Authors: Daniela Sacchetto, Lia Morra, Silvano Agliozzo, Daniela Bernardi, Tomas Björklund, Beniamino Brancato, Patrizia Bravetti, Luca A. Carbonaro, Loredana Correale, Carmen Fantò, Elisabetta Favettini, Laura Martincich, Luisella Milanesio, Sara Mombelloni, Francesco Monetti, Doralba Morrone, Marco Pellegrini, Barbara Pesce, Antonella Petrillo, Gianni Saguatti, Carmen Stevanin, Rubina M. Trimboli, Paola Tuttobene, Marvi Valentini, Vincenzo Marra, Alfonso Frigerio, Alberto Bert, Francesco Sardanelli

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

To compare breast density (BD) assessment provided by an automated BD evaluator (ABDE) with that provided by a panel of experienced breast radiologists, on a multivendor dataset.

Methods

Twenty-one radiologists assessed 613 screening/diagnostic digital mammograms from nine centers and six different vendors, using the BI-RADS a, b, c, and d density classification. The same mammograms were also evaluated by an ABDE providing the ratio between fibroglandular and total breast area on a continuous scale and, automatically, the BI-RADS score. A panel majority report (PMR) was used as reference standard. Agreement (κ) and accuracy (proportion of cases correctly classified) were calculated for binary (BI-RADS a-b versus c-d) and 4-class classification.

Results

While the agreement of individual radiologists with the PMR ranged from κ = 0.483 to κ = 0.885, the ABDE correctly classified 563/613 mammograms (92 %). A substantial agreement for binary classification was found for individual reader pairs (κ = 0.620, standard deviation [SD] = 0.140), individual versus PMR (κ = 0.736, SD = 0.117), and individual versus ABDE (κ = 0.674, SD = 0.095). Agreement between ABDE and PMR was almost perfect (κ = 0.831).

Conclusions

The ABDE showed an almost perfect agreement with a 21-radiologist panel in binary BD classification on a multivendor dataset, earning a chance as a reproducible alternative to visual evaluation.

Key Points

Individual BD assessment differs from PMR with κ as low as 0.483.
An ABDE correctly classified 92 % of mammograms with almost perfect agreement (κ = 0.831).
An ABDE can be a valid alternative to subjective BD assessment.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Ursin G, Qureshi SA (2009) Mammographic density – a useful biomarker for breast cancer risk in epidemiologic studies. Norsk Epidemiol 19:59–68 Ursin G, Qureshi SA (2009) Mammographic density – a useful biomarker for breast cancer risk in epidemiologic studies. Norsk Epidemiol 19:59–68
2.
go back to reference Colin C, Schott AM, Valette PJ (2014) Mammographic density is not a worthwhile examination to distinguish high cancer risk women in screening. Eur Radiol 24:2412–2416CrossRefPubMed Colin C, Schott AM, Valette PJ (2014) Mammographic density is not a worthwhile examination to distinguish high cancer risk women in screening. Eur Radiol 24:2412–2416CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference 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 96:1432–1440CrossRefPubMed 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 96:1432–1440CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Kavanagh AM, Byrnes GB, Nickson C et al (2008) English DR. Using mammographic density to improve breast cancer screening outcomes. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 17:2818–2824CrossRefPubMed Kavanagh AM, Byrnes GB, Nickson C et al (2008) English DR. Using mammographic density to improve breast cancer screening outcomes. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 17:2818–2824CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH (2002) Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology 225:165–175CrossRefPubMed Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH (2002) Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology 225:165–175CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Nothacker M, Duda V, Hahn M et al (2009) Early detection of breast cancer: benefits and risks of supplemental breast ultrasound in asymptomatic women with mammographically dense breast tissue. A systematic review. BMC Cancer 9:335–341PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Nothacker M, Duda V, Hahn M et al (2009) Early detection of breast cancer: benefits and risks of supplemental breast ultrasound in asymptomatic women with mammographically dense breast tissue. A systematic review. BMC Cancer 9:335–341PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D et al (2013) Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol 14:583–589CrossRefPubMed Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D et al (2013) Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol 14:583–589CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R et al (2013) Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 267(1):47–56CrossRefPubMed Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R et al (2013) Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 267(1):47–56CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Nickson C, Watson R, Kavanagh AM. A microsimulation model of the Breast Screen Australia program, Proceedings of the 18th World IMACS Congress/MODSIM Congress, Cairns, Australia 13-17 July 2009, 164–170 Nickson C, Watson R, Kavanagh AM. A microsimulation model of the Breast Screen Australia program, Proceedings of the 18th World IMACS Congress/MODSIM Congress, Cairns, Australia 13-17 July 2009, 164–170
10.
go back to reference American College of Radiology (ACR). ACR BI-RADS® Mammography. 5th Edition. In: Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, Breast Imaging Atlas. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2013 American College of Radiology (ACR). ACR BI-RADS® Mammography. 5th Edition. In: Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, Breast Imaging Atlas. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2013
11.
go back to reference 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. The Breast 21:503–506CrossRefPubMed 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. The Breast 21:503–506CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Redondo A, Comas M, Macià F et al (2012) Inter- and intraradiologist variability in the BI-RADS assessment and breast density categories for screening mammograms. Br J Radiol 85:1465–1470PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Redondo A, Comas M, Macià F et al (2012) Inter- and intraradiologist variability in the BI-RADS assessment and breast density categories for screening mammograms. Br J Radiol 85:1465–1470PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Bernardi D, Pellegrini M, Di Michele S et al (2012) Interobserver agreement in breast radiological density attribution according to BI-RADS quantitative classification. Radiol Med 17:519–528CrossRef Bernardi D, Pellegrini M, Di Michele S et al (2012) Interobserver agreement in breast radiological density attribution according to BI-RADS quantitative classification. Radiol Med 17:519–528CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Cohen J (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educat Psychol Meas 20:37–46CrossRef Cohen J (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educat Psychol Meas 20:37–46CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310CrossRefPubMed Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Gweon HM, Youk JH, Kim JA, Son EJ (2013) Radiologist assessment of breast density by BI-RADS categories versus fully automated volumetric assessment. AJR 201:692–697CrossRefPubMed Gweon HM, Youk JH, Kim JA, Son EJ (2013) Radiologist assessment of breast density by BI-RADS categories versus fully automated volumetric assessment. AJR 201:692–697CrossRefPubMed
17.
18.
go back to reference Tagliafico AS, Tagliafico G, Cavagnetto F, Calabrese M, Houssami N (2013) 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. Br J Radiol 86:20130255PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Tagliafico AS, Tagliafico G, Cavagnetto F, Calabrese M, Houssami N (2013) 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. Br J Radiol 86:20130255PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Mammographic density: Comparison of visual assessment with fully automatic calculation on a multivendor dataset
Authors
Daniela Sacchetto
Lia Morra
Silvano Agliozzo
Daniela Bernardi
Tomas Björklund
Beniamino Brancato
Patrizia Bravetti
Luca A. Carbonaro
Loredana Correale
Carmen Fantò
Elisabetta Favettini
Laura Martincich
Luisella Milanesio
Sara Mombelloni
Francesco Monetti
Doralba Morrone
Marco Pellegrini
Barbara Pesce
Antonella Petrillo
Gianni Saguatti
Carmen Stevanin
Rubina M. Trimboli
Paola Tuttobene
Marvi Valentini
Vincenzo Marra
Alfonso Frigerio
Alberto Bert
Francesco Sardanelli
Publication date
01-01-2016
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 1/2016
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-3784-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

European Radiology 1/2016 Go to the issue