Trends in Clinical Breast Density Assessment From the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium

被引:25
作者
Sprague, B. L. [1 ,2 ]
Kerlikowske, K. [3 ,4 ,5 ]
Bowles, E. J. A. [6 ]
Rauscher, G. H. [7 ]
Lee, C. I. [8 ,9 ]
Tosteson, A. N. A. [10 ,11 ]
Miglioretti, D. L. [6 ,12 ]
机构
[1] Univ Vermont, Dept Surg, Canc Ctr, Burlington, VT 05405 USA
[2] Univ Vermont, Dept Radiol, Canc Ctr, Burlington, VT 05405 USA
[3] Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Med, Dept Vet Affairs, San Francisco, CA USA
[4] Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Epidemiol & Biostat, Dept Vet Affairs, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
[5] Univ Calif San Francisco, Gen Internal Med Sect, Dept Vet Affairs, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
[6] Kaiser Permanente Washington, Hlth Res Inst, Seattle, WA USA
[7] Univ Illinois, Dept Epidemiol & Biostat, Sch Publ Hlth, Chicago, IL USA
[8] Univ Washington, Sch Med, Dept Radiol, Seattle, WA 98195 USA
[9] Hutchinson Inst Canc Outcomes Res, Seattle, WA USA
[10] Geisel Sch Med Dartmouth, Dartmouth Inst Hlth Policy & Clin Practice, Lebanon, NH USA
[11] Geisel Sch Med Dartmouth, Norris Cotton Canc Ctr, Lebanon, NH USA
[12] Univ Calif Davis, Sch Med, Dept Publ Hlth Sci, Div Biostat, Davis, CA 95616 USA
来源
JNCI-JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE | 2019年 / 111卷 / 06期
基金
美国医疗保健研究与质量局;
关键词
SYNTHESIZED 2-DIMENSIONAL MAMMOGRAPHY; BI-RADS DENSITY; 5TH EDITION; TOMOSYNTHESIS; PERFORMANCE; GUIDELINES; RISK; 4TH;
D O I
10.1093/jnci/djy210
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Changes to mammography practice, including revised Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) density classification guidelines and implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), may impact clinical breast density assessment. We investigated temporal trends in clinical breast density assessment among 2 990 291 digital mammography (DM) screens and 221 063 DBT screens interpreted by 722 radiologists from 144 facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. After age-standardization, 46.3% (95% CI = 44.1% to 48.6%) of DM screens were assessed as dense (heterogeneously/extremely dense) during the BI-RADS 4th edition era (2005-2013), compared to 46.5% (95% CI = 43.8% to 49.1%) during the 5th edition era (2014-2016) (P=.93 from two-sided generalized score test). Among DBT screens in the BI-RADS 5th edition era, 45.8% (95% CI = 42.0% to 49.7%) were assessed as dense (P=.77 from two-sided generalized score test) compared to 46.5% (95% CI = 43.8% to 49.1%) dense on DM in BI-RADS 5th edition era. Results were similar when examining all four density categories and age subgroups. Clinicians, researchers, and policymakers may reasonably expect stable density distributions across screened populations despite changes to the BI-RADS guidelines and implementation of DBT.
引用
收藏
页码:629 / 632
页数:4
相关论文
共 23 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
    Alikhassi, Afsaneh
    Gourabi, Hamed Esmaili
    Baikpour, Masoud
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY OPEN, 2018, 5 : 67 - 72
  • [2] Reliability of Automated Breast Density Measurements
    Alonzo-Proulx, Olivier
    Mawdsley, Gordon E.
    Patrie, James T.
    Yaffe, Martin J.
    Harvey, Jennifer A.
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2015, 275 (02) : 366 - 376
  • [3] Comparison Between Digital and Synthetic 2D Mammograms in Breast Density Interpretation
    Alshafeiy, Taghreed I.
    Wadih, Antoine
    Nicholson, Brandi T.
    Rochman, Carrie M.
    Peppard, Heather R.
    Patrie, James T.
    Harvey, Jennifer A.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2017, 209 (01) : W36 - W41
  • [4] [Anonymous], 2013, ACR BIRADS ATLAS BRE
  • [5] Clinical Performance of Synthesized Two-dimensional Mammography Combined with Tomosynthesis in a Large Screening Population
    Aujero, Mireille P.
    Gavenonis, Sara C.
    Benjamin, Ron
    Zhang, Zugui
    Holt, Jacqueline S.
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2017, 283 (01) : 70 - 76
  • [6] Breast cancer surveillance consortium: A national mammography screening and outcomes database
    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
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 1997, 169 (04) : 1001 - 1008
  • [7] Bassett LW, 2003, ACR BREAST IM REP DA, P1
  • [8] Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer
    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.
    [J]. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2007, 356 (03) : 227 - 236
  • [9] Carney PA, 2003, ANN INTERN MED, V138, P168, DOI 10.7326/0003-4819-138-3-200302040-00008
  • [10] Beyond BI-RADS Density: A Call for Quantification in the Breast Imaging Clinic
    Conant, Emily F.
    Sprague, Brian L.
    Kontos, Despina
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2018, 286 (02) : 401 - 404