Reported Mammographic Density: Film-Screen versus Digital Acquisition

被引:35
作者
Harvey, Jennifer A. [1 ]
Gard, Charlotte C. [2 ,3 ]
Miglioretti, Diana L. [2 ,3 ]
Yankaskas, Bonnie C. [4 ]
Kerlikowske, Karla [5 ,6 ,7 ]
Buist, Diana S. M. [8 ]
Geller, Berta A. [9 ,10 ]
Onega, Tracy L. [11 ]
机构
[1] Univ Virginia, Dept Radiol, Charlottesville, VA 22908 USA
[2] Univ Washington, Biostat Unit, Grp Hlth Res Inst, Seattle, WA 98195 USA
[3] Univ Washington, Dept Biostat, Seattle, WA 98195 USA
[4] Univ N Carolina, Dept Radiol, Chapel Hill, NC USA
[5] Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Epidemiol, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
[6] Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Biostat, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
[7] Univ Calif San Francisco, Gen Internal Med Sect, Dept Vet Affairs, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
[8] Grp Hlth Res Inst, Grp Hlth Cooperat, Seattle, WA USA
[9] Univ Vermont, Coll Med, Dept Family Med, Burlington, VT USA
[10] Univ Vermont, Coll Med, Dept Radiol, Burlington, VT USA
[11] Norris Cotton Canc Ctr, Dartmouth Med Sch, Dept Community & Family Med, Lebanon, NH USA
关键词
BREAST-CANCER RISK; QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT; PREDICTION MODEL; WOMEN; REPRODUCIBILITY;
D O I
10.1148/radiol.12120221
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Purpose: To test the hypothesis that American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) categories for breast density reported by radiologists are lower when digital mammography is used than those reported when film-screen (FS) mammography is used. Materials and Methods: This study was institutional review board approved and HIPAA compliant. Demographic data, risk factors, and BI-RADS breast density categories were collected from five mammography registries that were part of the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Active, passive, or waiver of consent was obtained for all participants. Women aged 40 years and older who underwent at least two screening mammographic examinations less than 36 months apart between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2009, were included. Women with prior breast cancer, augmentation, or use of agents known to affect density were excluded. The main sample included 89 639 women with both FS and digital mammograms. The comparison group included 259046 women with two FS mammograms and 87066 women with two digital mammograms. BI-RADS density was cross-tabulated according to the order in which the two types of mammogram were acquired and by the first versus second interpretation. Results: Regardless of acquisition method, the percentage of women with a change in density from one reading to the next was similar. Breast density was lower in 19.8% of the women who underwent FS before digital mammography and 17.1% of those who underwent digital before FS mammography. Similarly, lower density classifications were reported on the basis of the second mammographic examination regardless of acquisition method (15.8%-19.8%). The percentage of agreement between density readings was similar regardless of mammographic types paired (67.3%-71.0%). Conclusion: The study results showed no difference in reported BI-RADS breast density categories according to acquisition method. Reported BI-RADS density categories may be useful in the development of breast cancer risk models in which FS, digital, or both acquisition methods are used. (C) RSNA, 2012
引用
收藏
页码:752 / 758
页数:7
相关论文
共 31 条
[1]   Screen-Film Mammographic Density and Breast Cancer Risk: A Comparison of the Volumetric Standard Mammogram Form and the Interactive Threshold Measurement Methods [J].
Aitken, Zoe ;
McCormack, Valerie A. ;
Highnam, Ralph P. ;
Martin, Lisa ;
Gunasekara, Anoma ;
Melnichouk, Olga ;
Mawdsley, Gord ;
Peressotti, Chris ;
Yaffe, Martin ;
Boyd, Norman F. ;
Silva, Isabel dos Santos .
CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION, 2010, 19 (02) :418-428
[2]  
[Anonymous], BREAST IM REP DAT SY
[3]  
[Anonymous], BREAST CANC RISK ASS
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2003, BREAST IM REP DAT SY
[5]   Breast cancer surveillance consortium: A national mammography screening and outcomes database [J].
BallardBarbash, R ;
Taplin, SH ;
Yankaskas, BC ;
Ernster, VL ;
Rosenberg, RD ;
Carney, PA ;
Barlow, WE ;
Geller, BM ;
Kerlikowske, K ;
Edwards, BK ;
Lynch, CF ;
Urban, N ;
Key, CR ;
Poplack, SP ;
Worden, JK ;
Kessler, LG .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 1997, 169 (04) :1001-1008
[6]   Strengths and limitations of breast cancer risk assessment [J].
Baltzell, K ;
Wrensch, MR .
ONCOLOGY NURSING FORUM, 2005, 32 (03) :605-614
[7]   Prospective breast cancer risk prediction model for women undergoing screening mammography [J].
Barlow, William E. ;
White, Emily ;
Ballard-Barbash, Rachel ;
Vacek, Pamela M. ;
Titus-Ernstoff, Linda ;
Carney, Patricia A. ;
Tice, Jeffrey A. ;
Buist, Diana S. M. ;
Geller, Berta M. ;
Rosenberg, Robert ;
Yankaskas, Bonnie C. ;
Kerlikowske, Karla .
JNCI-JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2006, 98 (17) :1204-1214
[8]   QUANTITATIVE CLASSIFICATION OF MAMMOGRAPHIC DENSITIES AND BREAST-CANCER RISK - RESULTS FROM THE CANADIAN NATIONAL BREAST SCREENING STUDY [J].
BOYD, NF ;
BYNG, JW ;
JONG, RA ;
FISHELL, EK ;
LITTLE, LE ;
MILLER, AB ;
LOCKWOOD, GA ;
TRITCHLER, DL ;
YAFFE, MJ .
JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 1995, 87 (09) :670-675
[9]   Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer [J].
Boyd, Norman F. ;
Guo, Helen ;
Martin, Lisa J. ;
Sun, Limei ;
Stone, Jennifer ;
Fishell, Eve ;
Jong, Roberta A. ;
Hislop, Greg ;
Chiarelli, Anna ;
Minkin, Salomon ;
Yaffe, Martin J. .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2007, 356 (03) :227-236
[10]   Analysis of mammographic density and breast cancer risk from digitized mammograms [J].
Byng, JW ;
Yaffe, MJ ;
Jong, RA ;
Shumak, RS ;
Lockwood, GA ;
Tritchler, DL ;
Boyd, NF .
RADIOGRAPHICS, 1998, 18 (06) :1587-1598