Comparison of Breast Density Between Synthesized Versus Standard Digital Mammography

被引:12
作者
Haider, Irfanullah [1 ]
Morgan, Matthew [2 ]
McGow, Anna [2 ]
Stein, Matthew [2 ]
Rezvani, Maryam [2 ]
Freer, Phoebe [2 ]
Hu, Nan [2 ]
Fajardo, Laurie [2 ]
Winkler, Nicole [2 ]
机构
[1] Brigham & Womens Hosp, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[2] Univ Utah, Salt Lake City, UT USA
关键词
Synthetic mammogram; breast density; full-field digital mammogram; tomosynthesis; CANCER RISK; TOMOSYNTHESIS; IMAGES;
D O I
10.1016/j.jacr.2018.05.004
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 evaluate perceptual difference in breast density classification using synthesized mammography (SM) compared with standard or full-field digital mammography (FFDM) for screening. Materials and Methods: This institutional review board approved, retrospective, multireader study evaluated breast density on 200 patients who underwent baseline screening mammogram during which both SM and FFDM were obtained contemporaneously from June 1, 2016, through November 30, 2016. Qualitative breast density was independently assigned by seven readers initially evaluating FFDM alone. Then, in a separate session, these same readers assigned breast density using synthetic views alone on the same 200 patients. The readers were again blinded to each other's assignment. Qualitative density assessment was based on BI-BADS fifth edition. Interreader agreement was evaluated with K statistic using 95% confidence intervals. Testing for homogeneity in paired proportions was performed using McNemar's test with a level of significance of .05. Results: For patients across the SM and standard 2-D data set, diagnostic testing with McNemar's test with P=0.32 demonstrates that the minimal density transitions across FFDM and SM are not statistically significant density shifts. Taking clinical significance into account, only 8 of 200 (4%) patients had clinically significant transition (dense versus not dense). There was substantial interreader agreement with overall K in FFDM of 0.71 (minimum 0.53, maximum 0.81) and overall SM K average of 0.63 (minimum 0.56, maximum 0.87). Conclusion: Overall subjective breast density assignment by radiologists on SM is similar to density assignment on standard 2-D mammogram.
引用
收藏
页码:1430 / 1436
页数:7
相关论文
共 14 条
[1]   Comparison Between Digital and Synthetic 2D Mammograms in Breast Density Interpretation [J].
Alshafeiy, Taghreed I. ;
Wadih, Antoine ;
Nicholson, Brandi T. ;
Rochman, Carrie M. ;
Peppard, Heather R. ;
Patrie, James T. ;
Harvey, Jennifer A. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2017, 209 (01) :W36-W41
[2]  
[Anonymous], MQSA NAT STAT
[3]   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
[4]   Comparison between two-dimensional synthetic mammography reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography for the detection of T1 breast cancer [J].
Choi, Ji Soo ;
Han, Boo-Kyung ;
Ko, Eun Young ;
Ko, Eun Sook ;
Hahn, Soo Yeon ;
Shin, Jung Hee ;
Kim, Min Jung .
EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2016, 26 (08) :2538-2546
[5]   Mammographic Breast Density: Impact on Breast Cancer Risk and Implications for Screening [J].
Freer, Phoebe E. .
RADIOGRAPHICS, 2015, 35 (02) :302-315
[6]   What Do. Women Know About Breast Density? Results From a Population Survey of Virginia Women [J].
Guterbock, Thomas M. ;
Cohn, Wendy F. ;
Rexrode, Deborah L. ;
Eggleston, Casey M. ;
Dean-McKinney, Melissa ;
Novicoff, Wendy M. ;
Yaffe, Martin J. ;
Knaus, William A. ;
Harvey, Jennifer A. .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RADIOLOGY, 2017, 14 (01) :34-44
[7]   Quantitative assessment of mammographic breast density: Relationship with breast cancer risk [J].
Harvey, JA ;
Bovbjerg, VE .
RADIOLOGY, 2004, 230 (01) :29-41
[8]   Measurement of observer agreement [J].
Kundel, HL ;
Polansky, M .
RADIOLOGY, 2003, 228 (02) :303-308
[9]   How does c-view image quality compare with conventional 2D FFDM? [J].
Nelson, Jeffrey S. ;
Wells, Jered R. ;
Baker, Jay A. ;
Samei, Ehsan .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2016, 43 (05) :2538-2547
[10]   Increased Cancer Detection Rate and Variations in the Recall Rate Resulting from Implementation of 3D Digital Breast Tomosynthesis into a Population-based Screening Program [J].
Sharpe, Richard E., Jr. ;
Venkataraman, Shambavi ;
Phillips, Jordana ;
Dialani, Vandana ;
Fein-Zachary, Valerie J. ;
Prakash, Seema ;
Slanetz, Priscilla J. ;
Mehta, Tejas S. .
RADIOLOGY, 2016, 278 (03) :698-706