Comparison of breast density assessment between human eye and automated software on digital and synthetic mammography: Impact on breast cancer risk

被引:15
作者
Le Boulc'h, M. [1 ]
Bekhouche, A. [1 ,2 ]
Kermarrec, E. [1 ]
Milon, A. [1 ,2 ]
Wahab, C. Abdel [1 ,2 ]
Zilberman, S. [1 ,3 ]
Chabbert-Buffet, N. [1 ,3 ]
Thomassin-Naggara, I. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Sorbonne Univ, Hop Tenon, AP HP, Dept Radiol, F-75020 Paris, France
[2] Sorbonne Univ, Inst Sci Calcul & Donnees Jussieu, Paris, France
[3] Sorbonne Univ, Ctr Femmes Risque Canc Sein & Ovaire, Hop Tenon, AP HP,Dept Gynecol & Obstet, F-75020 Paris, France
关键词
MammoRisk (R); Mammography; Breast density; Breast neoplasms; Artificial intelligence; SYNTHESIZED 2-DIMENSIONAL MAMMOGRAPHY; 2D MAMMOGRAPHY; TOMOSYNTHESIS; WOMEN; VARIABILITY; PERFORMANCE; 4TH;
D O I
10.1016/j.diii.2020.07.004
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 the agreement between automatic assessment software of breast density based on artificial intelligence (AI) and visual assessment by a senior and a junior radiologist, as well as the impact on the assessment of breast cancer risk (BCR) at 5 years. Materials and methods: We retrospectively included 311 consecutive women (mean age, 55.6 +/- 8.5 [SD]; range: 40-74 years) without a personal history of breast cancer who underwent routine mammography between January 1, 2019 and February 28, 2019. Mammographic breast density (MBD) was independently evaluated by a junior and a senior reader on digital mammography (DM) and synthetic mammography (SM) using BI-RADS (5th edition) and by an AI software. For each MBD, BCR at 5 years was estimated per woman by the AI software. Interobserver agreement for MBD between the two readers and the AI software were evaluated by quadratic kappa coefficients. Reproducibility of BCR was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results: Agreement for MBD assessment on DM and SM was almost perfect between senior and junior radiologists (kappa = 0.88 [95% CI: 0.84-0.92] and kappa = 0.86 [95% CI: 0.82-0.90], respectively) and substantial between the senior radiologist and AI (kappa = 0.79; 95% CI: 0.73-0.84). There was substantial agreement between DM and SM for the senior radiologist (kappa = 0.79; 95% CI: 0.74-0.84). BCR evaluation at 5 years was highly reproducible between the two radiologists on DM and SM (ICC = 0.98 [95% CI: 0.97-0.98] for both), between BCR evaluation based on DM and SM evaluated by the senior (ICC = 0.96; 95% CI: 0.95-0.97) or junior radiologist (ICC = 0.97; 95% CI: 0.96-0.98) and between the senior radiologist and AI (ICC = 0.96; 95% CI: 0.95-0.97). Conclusion: This preliminary study demonstrates a very good agreement for BCR evaluation based on the evaluation of MBD by a senior radiologist, junior radiologist and AI software. (C) 2020 Societe francaise de radiologie. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:811 / 819
页数:9
相关论文
共 51 条
[1]   Comparison of inter- and intra-observer variability of breast density assessments using the fourth and fifth editions of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System [J].
Alikhassi, Afsaneh ;
Gourabi, Hamed Esmaili ;
Baikpour, Masoud .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY OPEN, 2018, 5 :67-72
[2]   Variability of Breast Density Classification Between US and UK Radiologists [J].
Alomaim, Wijdan ;
O'Leary, Desiree ;
Ryan, John ;
Rainford, Louise ;
Evanoff, Michael ;
Foley, Shane .
JOURNAL OF MEDICAL IMAGING AND RADIATION SCIENCES, 2019, 50 (01) :53-61
[3]  
American College of Radiology, 2013, ACR BI RADS ATLAS BR
[4]   Clinical Performance of Synthesized Two-dimensional Mammography Combined with Tomosynthesis in a Large Screening Population [J].
Aujero, Mireille P. ;
Gavenonis, Sara C. ;
Benjamin, Ron ;
Zhang, Zugui ;
Holt, Jacqueline S. .
RADIOLOGY, 2017, 283 (01) :70-76
[5]   A new automated method to evaluate 2D mammographic breast density according to BI-RADS® Atlas Fifth Edition recommendations [J].
Balleyguier, Corinne ;
Arfi-Rouche, Julia ;
Boyer, Bruno ;
Gauthier, Emilien ;
Helin, Valerie ;
Loshkajian, Ara ;
Ragusa, Stephane ;
Delaloge, Suzette .
EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2019, 29 (07) :3830-3838
[6]   Breast cancer screening with tomosynthesis (3D mammography) with acquired or synthetic 2D mammography compared with 2D mammography alone (STORM-2): a population-based prospective study [J].
Bernardi, Daniela ;
Macaskill, Petra ;
Pellegrini, Marco ;
Valentini, Marvi ;
Fanto, Carmine ;
Ostillio, Livio ;
Tuttobene, Paolina ;
Luparia, Andrea ;
Houssami, Nehmat .
LANCET ONCOLOGY, 2016, 17 (08) :1105-1113
[7]   Mammographic breast density as an intermediate phenotype for breast cancer [J].
Boyd, NF ;
Rommens, JM ;
Vogt, K ;
Lee, V ;
Hopper, JL ;
Yaffe, MJ ;
Paterson, AD .
LANCET ONCOLOGY, 2005, 6 (10) :798-808
[8]   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
[9]   Comparison of Clinical and Automated Breast Density Measurements: Implications for Risk Prediction and Supplemental Screening [J].
Brandt, Kathleen R. ;
Scott, Christopher G. ;
Ma, Lin ;
Mahmoudzadeh, Amir P. ;
Jensen, Matthew R. ;
Whaley, Dana H. ;
Wu, Fang Fang ;
Malkov, Serghei ;
Hruska, Carrie B. ;
Norman, Aaron D. ;
Heine, John ;
Shepherd, John ;
Pankratz, V. Shane ;
Kerlikowske, Karla ;
Vachon, Celine M. .
RADIOLOGY, 2016, 279 (03) :710-719
[10]   Impact on the recall rate of digital breast tomosynthesis as an adjunct to digital mammography in the screening setting. A double reading experience and review of the literature [J].
Carbonaro, Luca A. ;
Di Leo, Giovanni ;
Clauser, Paola ;
Trimboli, Rubina M. ;
Verardi, Nicola ;
Fedeli, Maria P. ;
Girometti, Rossano ;
Tafa, Alfredo ;
Bruscoli, Paola ;
Saguatti, Gianni ;
Bazzocchi, Massimo ;
Sardanelli, Francesco .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2016, 85 (04) :808-814