Mammographic density measured with quantitative computer-aided method: Comparison with radiologists' estimates and BI-RADS categories

Radiology

Volumn 240, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 656-665

  Martin, Katherine E ^a,d   Helvie, Mark A ^b   Zhou, Chuan ^b   Roubidoux, Marilyn A ^b   Bailey, Janet E ^b   Paramagul, Chintana ^b   Blane, Caroline E ^b   Klein, Katherine A ^b   Sonnad, Seema S ^c   Chan, Heang Ping ^b  

^a Associated Radiologists Limited   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN HEALTH SYSTEM   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^d East Valley Diagnostic Imaging   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; FEMALE; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STUDENT T TEST;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 33747601877     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2402041947     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. American College of Radiology. American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). 4th ed. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 2003.
2. White E, Velentgas P, Mandelson MT, et al. Variation in mammographic breast density by time in menstrual cycle among women aged 40-49 years. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90:906-910.
3. Rosenberg RD, Hunt WC, Williamson MR, et al. Effects of age, breast density, ethnicity, and estrogen replacement therapy on screening mammographic sensitivity and cancer stage at diagnosis: review of 183 134 screening mammograms in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Radiology 1998;209:511-518.
4. Boyd NF, Byng RA, Jong EK, et al. Quantitative classification of mammographic densities and breast cancer risk: results from the Canadian National Breast Screening Study. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995;87:670-675.
5. Boyd NF, Lockwood GA, Martin LJ, et al. Mammographic densities and risk of breast cancer among subjects with a family history of this disease. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999;91:1404-1408.
6. Boyd NF, Greenberg C, Lockwood G, et al. Effects at 2 years of a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet on radiologic features of the breast: results from a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 1997;89:488-496.
7. Byrne C, Schairer CS, Wolfe J, et al. Mammographic features and breast cancer risk: effects with time, age, and menopause status. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993;87:1622-1628.
8. Warner E, Lockwood G, Math M, Tritchler D, Boyd NF. The risk of breast cancer associated with mammographic parenchymal patterns: a meta-analysis of the published literature to examine the effect of method of classification. Cancer Detect Prev 1992;16:67-72.
9. Heine JJ, Malhotra P. Mammographic tissue, breast cancer risk, serial image analysis, and digital mammography. Acad Radiol 2002;9:298-335.
10. Boyd NF, Dite GS, Stone J, et al. Heritability of mammographic density, a risk factor for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2002;347:886-894.
11. Wolfe JN, Saftlas AF, Salane M. Mammographic parenchymal patterns and quantitative evaluation of mammographic densities: a case-control study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1987;148:1087-1092.
12. Stomper PC, Van Voorhis BJ, Ravnikar VA, Meyer JE. Mammographic changes associated with postmenopausal hormone replacement therapy: a longitudinal study. Radiology 1990;174:487-490.
13. Laya MB, Gallagher JC, Schreiman JS, Larson EB, Watson P, Weinstein L. Effect of postmenopausal hormonal replacement therapy on mammographic density and parenchymal pattern. Radiology 1995;196:433-437.
14. Son HJ, Oh KK. Significance of follow-up mammography in estimating the effect of tamoxifen in breast cancer patients who have undergone surgery. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999;173:905-909.
15. Colditz GA, Hankinson SE, Hunter DJ, et al. The use of estrogens and progestins and the risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women. N Engl J Med 1993;332:1589-1593.
16. Ross RK, Paganini-Hill A, Wan PC, Pike MC. Effect of hormone replacement therapy on breast cancer risk: estrogen versus estrogen plus progestin. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:328-332.
17. Fisher B, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, et al. Tamoxifen for prevention of breast cancer: report of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 Study. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90:1371-1388.
18. Rossouw JE, Anderson GL, Prentice RL, et al. Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: principal results from the Women's Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2002;288:321-333.
19. Byng JW, Boyd NF, Fishell E, Jong RA, Yaffe MJ. The quantitative analysis of mammographic densities. Phys Med Biol 1994;39:1629-1638.
20. Boone JM, Lindfors KK, Beatty CS, Seibert JA. A breast density index for digital mammograms based on radiologists' ranking. J Digit Imaging 1998;11:101-115.
21. Wang XH, Good WF, Chapman BE, et al. Automated assessment of the composition of breast tissue revealed on tissue-thickness-corrected mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;180:257-262.
22. Wei J, Chan HP, Helvie MA, et al. Correlation between mammographic density and volumetric fibroglandular tissue estimated on breast MR images. Med Phys 2004;31(4):933-942.
23. Zhou C, Chan HP, Petrick N, et al. Computerized image analysis: estimation of breast density on mammograms. Med Phys 2001;28:1036-1069.
24. Wong AK. A gray-level threshold selection method based on maximum entropy principle. IEEE Trans System Man Cybernetics 1989;19:866-871.
25. Otsu N. A threshold selection method from gray-level histograms. IEEE Trans System Man Cybernetics 1979;9:62-66.
26. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1:307-310.
27. Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research. New York, NY: Chapman & Hall, 1991.
28. Lee-Han H, Cooke G, Boyd NF. Quantitative evaluation of mammographic densities: a comparison of methods of assessment. Eur J Cancer Prev 1995;4:285-292.