Misclassification of breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) mammographic density and implications for breast density reporting legislation

Breast Journal

Volumn 21, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 481-489

  Gard, Charlotte C ^a   Aiello Bowles, Erin J ^b   Miglioretti, Diana L ^b,c   Taplin, Stephen H ^d   Rutter, Carolyn M ^b,e  

^a NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b CENTER FOR HEALTH STUDIES   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^e RAND CORPORATION   (United States)

Author keywords

BI RADS density; breast density reporting legislation; intra and interradiologist agreement; misclassification; percent density

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; BREAST DENSITY; CANCER CLASSIFICATION; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER SCREENING; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTEGRATED HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; INVASIVE CARCINOMA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; UNITED STATES; ABNORMALITIES; BREAST; BREAST TUMOR; CLASSIFICATION; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; MAMMARY GLAND; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATHOLOGY; STANDARDS;

BREAST; BREAST DENSITY; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMARY GLANDS, HUMAN; OBSERVER VARIATION; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84940725139     PISSN: 1075122X     EISSN: 15244741     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/tbj.12443     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. McCormack VA, dos Santos Silva I,. Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidem Biomar 2006; 15: 1159-69.
2. Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, et al,. Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 2003; 138: 168-75.
3. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Ernster V,. Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. J Am Med Assoc 1996; 276: 33-8.
4. Buist DSM, Porter PL, Lehman C, Taplin SH, White E,. Factors contributing to mammography failure in women aged 40-49 years. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004; 96: 1432-40.
5. American College of Radiology. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, 5th edn. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2013.
6. Yaffe MJ,. Mammographic density-measurement of mammographic density. Breast Cancer Res 2008; 10: 209.
7. Smith-Bindman R, Chu P, Miglioretti DL, et al,. Physician predictors of mammographic accuracy. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005; 97: 358-67.
8. Elmore JG, Jackson SL, Abraham L, et al,. Variability in interpretive performance at screening mammography and radiologists'; characteristics associated with accuracy. Radiology 2009; 253: 641-51.
9. ® State Efforts. Available at: http://areyoudenseadvocacy.org/dense/ (accessed June 12, 2014).
10. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, et al,. Variability and accuracy in mammographic interpretation using the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998; 90: 1801-9.
11. Berg WA, Campassi C, Langenberg P, Sexton MJ,. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: inter- and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment. Am J Roentgenol 2000; 174: 1769-77.
12. Ciatto S, Houssami N, Apruzzese A, et al,. Categorizing breast mammographic density: intra- and interobserver reproducibility of BI-RADS density categories. Breast 2005; 14: 269-75.
13. Ooms EA, Zonderland HM, Eijkemans MJC, et al,. Mammography: interobserver variability in breast density assessment. Breast 2007; 16: 568-76.
14. Taplin SH, Rutter CM, Lehman CD,. Testing the effect of computer-assisted detection on interpretive performance in screening mammography. Am J Roentgenol 2006; 187: 1475-82.
15. Kerlikowske K, Ichikawa L, Miglioretti DL, et al,. Longitudinal measurement of clinical mammographic breast density to improve estimation of breast cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007; 99: 386-95.
16. American College of Radiology. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, 3rd edn. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 1998.
17. Byng JW, Boyd NF, Fishell E, Jong RA, Yaffe MJ,. The quantitative analysis of mammographic densities. Phys Med Biol 1994; 39: 1629-38.
18. Byng JW, Yaffe MJ, Jong RA, et al,. Analysis of mammographic density and breast cancer risk from digitized mammograms. Radiographics 1998; 18: 1587-98.
19. Cohen J,. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 1960; 20: 37-46.
20. Landis JR, Koch GG,. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33: 159-74.
21. Efron B, Tibshirani RJ,. An Introduction to the Bootstrap, 2nd edn. New York: Chapman and Hall/CRC, 1998.
22. Gweon HM, Youk JH, Kim JA, Son EJ,. Radiologist assessment of breast density by BI-RADS categories versus fully automated volumetric assessment. Am J Roentgenol 2013; 201: 692-7.
23. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Breast Cancer Risk Calculator. Available at: https://tools.bcsc-scc.org/BC5yearRisk/intro.htm (accessed June 12, 2014).
24. Tice JA, Cummings SR, Smith-Bindman R, Ichikawa L, Barlow WE, Kerlikowske K,. Using clinical factors and mammographic breast density to estimate breast cancer risk: development and validation of a new predictive model. Ann Intern Med 2008; 148: 337-47.
25. Yaffe MJ, Boyd NF, Byng JW, et al,. Breast cancer risk and measured mammographic density. Eur J Cancer Prev 1998; 7 (Suppl 1): S47-55.
26. Harvey JA, Gard CC, Miglioretti DL, et al,. Reported mammographic density: film-screen versus digital acquisition. Radiology 2013; 266: 752-8.
27. American College of Radiology. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, 4th edn. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2003.
28. Kontos D, Bakic PR, Carton AK, Troxel AB, Conant EF, Maidment AD,. Parenchymal texture analysis in digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer risk estimation: a preliminary study. Acad Radiol 2009; 16: 283-98.
29. Gustafson P,. Measurement Error and Misclassification in Statistics and Epidemiology: Impacts and Bayesian Adjustments. New York: Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2004.