Reader variability in breast density estimation from full-field digital mammograms. The effect of image postprocessing on relative and absolute measures

Academic Radiology

Volumn 20, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 560-568

  Keller, Brad M ^a   Nathan, Diane L ^a   Gavenonis, Sara C ^a   Chen, Jinbo ^a   Conant, Emily F ^a   Kontos, Despina ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Breast cancer risk; Breast density; Digital mammography; Reader variability

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BREAST; BREAST CANCER; BREAST DENSITY; DENSITY; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGING AND DISPLAY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAM; MEASUREMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGIST; RELIABILITY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; RISK ASSESSMENT;

ABSORPTIOMETRY, PHOTON; ALGORITHMS; BREAST; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84875902233     PISSN: 10766332     EISSN: 18784046     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2013.01.003     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Siegel R., Naishadham D., Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 2012, 62:10-29.
2. Hayat M.J., Howlader N., Reichman M.E., et al. Cancer statistics, trends, and multiple primary cancer analyses from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program. Oncologist 2007, 12:20-37.
3. Gail M.H., Brinton L.A., Byar D.P., et al. Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst 1989, 81:1879-1886.
4. McPherson K., Steel C.M., Dixon J.M. ABC of breast diseases. Breast cancer-epidemiology, risk factors, and genetics. BMJ 2000, 321:624-628.
5. Lee C.H., Dershaw D.D., Kopans D., et al. Breast cancer screening with imaging: recommendations from the Society of Breast Imaging and the ACR on the use of mammography, breast MRI, breast ultrasound, and other technologies for the detection of clinically occult breast cancer. J Am Coll Radiol 2010, 7:18-27.
6. Tice J.A., Cummings S.R., Ziv E., et al. Mammographic breast density and the Gail model for breast cancer risk prediction in a screening population. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2005, 94:115-122.
7. McCormack V.A., dos Santos Silva I. Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006, 15:1159-1169.
8. Boyd N.F., Guo H., Martin L.J., et al. Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2007, 356:227-236.
9. D'Orsi C.J., Bassett L.W., Berg W.A., et al. Breast imaging reporting and data system: ACR BI-RADS, Mammography 2003, American College of Radiology, Reston, VA. 4th ed.
10. Byng J.W., Boyd N.F., Fishell E., et al. The quantitative analysis of mammographic densities. Phys Med Biol 1994, 39:1629-1638.
11. Mandelblatt J.S., Stout N., Trentham-Dietz A. To screen or not to screen women in their 40s for breast cancer: is personalized risk-based screening the answer?. Ann Intern Med 2011, 155:58-60.
12. Spayne M.C., Gard C.C., Skelly J., et al. Reproducibility of BI-RADS Breast Density Measures Among Community Radiologists: a prospective cohort study. Breast J 2012, 18:326-333.
13. Harvey J.A. Quantitative assessment of percent breast density: analog versus digital acquisition. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2004, 3:611-616.
14. Yaffe M.J. Mammographic density. Measurement of mammographic density. Breast Cancer Res 2008, 10:209-218.
15. Conant E., Li D., Gavenonis S., et al. A comparative study of the inter-reader variability of breast percent density estimation in digital mammography: potential effect of reader's training and clinical experience. Dig Mammogr 2010, 114-120.
16. Chen J., Pee D., Ayyagari R., et al. Projecting absolute invasive breast cancer risk in white women with a model that includes mammographic density. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006, 98:1215-1226.
17. Stone J., Ding J., Warren R.M., et al. Predicting breast cancer risk using mammographic density measurements from both mammogram sides and views. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2010, 124:551-554.
18. Perez-Gomez B., Ruiz F., Martinez I., et al. Women's features and inter-/intra-rater agreement on mammographic density assessment in full-field digital mammograms (DDM-SPAIN). Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012, 132:287-295.
19. Ooms E.A., Zonderland H.M., Eijkemans M.J., et al. Mammography: interobserver variability in breast density assessment. Breast 2007, 16:568-576.
20. Gao J., Warren R., Warren-Forward H., et al. Reproducibility of visual assessment on mammographic density. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2008, 108:121-127.
21. Ciatto S., Houssami N., Apruzzese A., et al. Categorizing breast mammographic density: intra- and interobserver reproducibility of BI-RADS density categories. Breast 2005, 14:269-275.
22. Li D., Gavenonis S., Conant E., Kontos D. Comparison of breast percent density estimation from raw versus processed digital mammograms. Proc SPIE 2011, 7963:79631X.
23. Stone J., Warren R.M., Pinney E., et al. Determinants of percentage and area measures of mammographic density. Am J Epidemiol 2009, 170:1571-1578.
24. Kontos D., Ikejimba L.C., Bakic P.R., Troxel A.B., Conant E.F., Maidment A.D. Analysis of parenchymal texture with digital breast tomosynthesis: comparison with digital mammography and implications for cancer risk assessment. Radiology 2011, 261:80-91.
25. Bakic P.R., Carton A.K., Kontos D., et al. Breast percent density: estimation on digital mammograms and central tomosynthesis projections. Radiology 2009, 252:40-49.
26. Pearson K. Mathematical contributions to the theory of evolution. III. Regression, heredity, and panmixia. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical or Physical Character 1896; 187:253-318.
27. Bland J.M., Altman D.G. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986, 1:307-310.
28. Cohen J. Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull 1968, 70:213.
29. Martin K.E., Helvie M.A., Zhou C., et al. Mammographic density measured with quantitative computer-aided method: comparison with radiologists' estimates and BI-RADS categories. Radiology 2006, 240:656-665.
30. Heine J.J., Cao K., Rollison D.E., et al. A quantitative description of the percentage of breast density measurement using full-field digital mammography. Acad Radiol 2011, 18:556-564.
31. Shepherd J.A., Kerlikowske K., Ma L., et al. Volume of mammographic density and risk of breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2011, 20:1473-1482.
32. Keller B.M., Nathan D.L., Wang Y., et al. Estimation of breast percent density in raw and processed full field digital mammography images via adaptive fuzzy c-means clustering and support vector machine segmentation. Med Phys 2012, 39:4903-4917.
33. Keller B.M., Nathan D.L., Conant E.F., et al. Model-based estimation of breast percent density in raw and processed full-field digital mammography images from image-acquisition physics and patient-image characteristics. SPIE Proc 2012, 8313.
34. Byng J.W., Yaffe M.J., Jong R.A., et al. Analysis of mammographic density and breast cancer risk from digitized mammograms. Radiographics 1998, 18:1587-1598.
35. Lobbes M.B., Cleutjens J.P., Lima Passos V., et al. Density is in the eye of the beholder: visual versus semi-automated assessment of breast density on standard mammograms. Insights Imaging 2012, 3:91-99.