Evaluation of Automated Mammographic Density Classification in Tomosynthesis: Comparison with Radiologists

被引:0
|
作者
Kiziloglu, Hueseyin Alper [1 ]
Beyhan, Murat [1 ]
Gokce, Erkan [1 ]
Birisik, Yasar [1 ]
Battal, Muhammet Furkan [1 ]
Ceker, Muhammed Erkam [1 ]
Demir, Osman [2 ]
机构
[1] Tokat Gaziosmanpasa Univ, Fac Med, Dept Radiol, Kaleardi Neighborhood Muhittin Fisunoglu St, TR-60250 Tokat, Turkiye
[2] Tokat Gaziosmanpasa Univ, Fac Med, Dept Biostat, Tokat, Turkiye
来源
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF THERAPEUTICS | 2024年 / 30卷 / 03期
关键词
Bellus software; mammographic density; automatic; BREAST DENSITY; 5TH EDITION; VARIABILITY; WOMEN;
D O I
10.58600/eurjther2002
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objective: Breast cancer screening is a valuable field of health research conducted through mammography. However, mammography evaluation is the examination with the most frequent lack of to agrement among radiologists. In this study we aimed to show the compatibility of mammographic density classification with a new software, Bellus Breast Density Measurement Software (Option), with visual examination. Methods: The mammographic density classification of 500 patients was retrospectively determined by five radiologists with varying levels of experience, according to the 5th version of the breast imaging reporting and data system (BIRADS). The mean age of 500 women included in the study was calculated as 53.8 +/- 10.08. The obtained data were compared with the Bellus software mammographic density classification of the same patients. Then, the visual evaluation and the compatibility of the Bellus software and the readers were compared. Results: The agreement between the Bellus software and all five readers was poor (kappa value 0.07-0.12). The agreement of the readers with each other is moderate-good (kappa value 0.0540.64). The Intraclass Correlation Coeffi cient (ICC) value for the five separate readers was calculated to be 0.80, indicating good compatibility, while the ICC value for the Bellus software with the five separate readers was calculated to be 0.74, indicating moderate compatibility. The Friedman test revealed that while the mammographic density classification of each reader remained consistent, the classification provided by the Bellus software differed. Conclusion: Bellus Breast Density Measurement Software (Option) diagnostic accuracy is lower than visual examination. We recommend that the manufacturer develop the software.
引用
收藏
页码:258 / 266
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Classification of normal screening mammograms is strongly influenced by perceived mammographic breast density
    Ang, Zoey Z. Y.
    Rawashdeh, Mohammad A.
    Heard, Rob
    Brennan, Patrick C.
    Lee, Warwick
    Lewis, Sarah J.
    JOURNAL OF MEDICAL IMAGING AND RADIATION ONCOLOGY, 2017, 61 (04) : 461 - 469
  • [22] Assessing within-woman changes in mammographic density: a comparison of fully versus semi-automated area-based approaches
    Marta Cecilia Busana
    Bianca L. De Stavola
    Ulla Sovio
    Jingmei Li
    Sue Moss
    Keith Humphreys
    Isabel dos-Santos-Silva
    Cancer Causes & Control, 2016, 27 : 481 - 491
  • [23] Comparison of Danish dichotomous and BI-RADS classifications of mammographic density
    Hodge, Rebecca
    Hellmann, Sophie Sell
    von Euler-Chelpin, My
    Vejborg, Ilse
    Andersen, Zorana Jovanovic
    ACTA RADIOLOGICA OPEN, 2014, 3 (05):
  • [24] A Novel Automated Mammographic Density Measure and Breast Cancer Risk
    Heine, John J.
    Scott, Christopher G.
    Sellers, Thomas A.
    Brandt, Kathleen R.
    Serie, Daniel J.
    Wu, Fang-Fang
    Morton, Marilyn J.
    Schueler, Beth A.
    Couch, Fergus J.
    Olson, Janet E.
    Pankratz, V. Shane
    Vachon, Celine M.
    JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2012, 104 (13) : 1028 - 1037
  • [25] Automated Breast Density Assessment for Full-Field Digital Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis
    Jiang, Shu
    Bennett, Debbie L.
    Chen, Simin
    Toriola, Adetunji T.
    Colditz, Graham A.
    CANCER PREVENTION RESEARCH, 2025, 18 (01) : 23 - 29
  • [26] Quantitative breast density analysis using tomosynthesis and comparison with MRI and digital mammography
    Moon, Woo Kyung
    Chang, Jie-Fan
    Lo, Chung-Ming
    Chang, Jung Min
    Lee, Su Hyun
    Shin, Sung Ui
    Huang, Chiun-Sheng
    Chang, Ruey-Feng
    COMPUTER METHODS AND PROGRAMS IN BIOMEDICINE, 2018, 154 : 99 - 107
  • [27] Classification of fatty and dense breast parenchyma: comparison of automatic volumetric density measurement and radiologists' classification and their inter-observer variation
    Osteras, Bjorn Helge
    Martinsen, Anne Catrine T.
    Brandal, Siri Helene B.
    Chaudhry, Khalida Nasreen
    Eben, Ellen
    Haakenaasen, Unni
    Falk, Ragnhild Sorum
    Skaane, Per
    ACTA RADIOLOGICA, 2016, 57 (10) : 1178 - 1185
  • [28] Semi-automated and fully automated mammographic density measurement and breastcancer risk prediction
    Llobet, Rafael
    Pollan, Marina
    Anton, Joaquin
    Miranda-Garcia, Josefa
    Casals, Maria
    Martinez, Inmaculada
    Ruiz-Perales, Francisco
    Perez-Gomez, Beatriz
    Salas-Trejo, Dolores
    Perez-Cortes, Juan-Carlos
    COMPUTER METHODS AND PROGRAMS IN BIOMEDICINE, 2014, 116 (02) : 105 - 115
  • [29] Variation in Mammographic Breast Density Assessments Among Radiologists in Clinical Practice A Multicenter Observational Study
    Sprague, Brian L.
    Conant, Emily F.
    Onega, Tracy
    Garcia, Michael P.
    Beaber, Elisabeth F.
    Herschorn, Sally D.
    Lehman, Constance D.
    Tosteson, Anna N. A.
    Lacson, Ronilda
    Schnall, Mitchell D.
    Kontos, Despina
    Haas, Jennifer S.
    Weaver, Donald L.
    Barlow, William E.
    ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2016, 165 (07) : 457 - +
  • [30] Combination of Different Texture Features for Mammographic Breast Density Classification
    Liasis, Gregoris
    Pattichis, Constantinos
    Petroudi, Styliani
    IEEE 12TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON BIOINFORMATICS & BIOENGINEERING, 2012, : 732 - 737