Agreement between Breast Percentage Density Estimations from Standard-Dose versus Synthetic Digital Mammograms: Results from a Large Screening Cohort Using Automated Measures

被引:18
作者
Conant, Emily F. [1 ]
Keller, Brad M. [1 ]
Pantalone, Lauren [1 ]
Gastounioti, Aimilia [1 ]
McDonald, Elizabeth S. [1 ]
Kontos, Despina [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Penn, Dept Radiol, Room D702,Richards Bldg,3700 Hamilton Walk, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
关键词
HIGH-RISK; TOMOSYNTHESIS; CANCER; COMBINATION; IMAGES; AREA; VARIABILITY; TOOL;
D O I
10.1148/radiol.2016161286
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 agreement between automated estimates of breast density made from standard-dose versus synthetic digital mammograms in a large cohort of women undergoing screening. Materials and Methods: This study received institutional review board approval with waiver of consent. A total of 3668 negative (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System category 1 or 2) digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening examinations consecutively performed over a 4-month period at one institution for which both standard-dose and synthetic mammograms were available for analysis were retrospectively analyzed. All mammograms were acquired with a Selenia Dimensions system (Hologic, Bedford, Mass), and synthetic mammograms were generated by using the U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved "C-View" software module. The "For Presentation" standard-dose mammograms and synthetic images were analyzed by using a fully automated algorithm. Agreement between density estimates was assessed by using Pearson correlation, linear regression, and Bland-Altman analysis. Differences were evaluated by using the paired Student t test. Results: Breast percentage density (PD) estimates from synthetic and standard-dose mammograms were highly correlated (r = 0.92, P < .001), and the 95% Bland-Altman limits of agreement between PD estimates were 26.4% to 9.9%. Synthetic mammograms had PD estimates by an average of 1.7% higher than standard-dose mammograms (P < .001), with a larger disagreement by 1.56% in women with highly dense breast tissue (P < .0001). Conclusion: Fully automated estimates of breast density made from synthetic mammograms are generally comparable to those made from standard-dose mammograms. This may be important, as standard two-dimensional mammographic images are increasingly being replaced by synthetic mammograms in DBT screening in an attempt to reduce radiation dose. (C) RSNA, 2017
引用
收藏
页码:672 / 679
页数:8
相关论文
共 38 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2013, ACR BIRADS ATLAS BR
[2]  
Barufaldi B, 2015, RAD SOC N AM SCI ASS, P223
[3]   Breast Tissue Composition and Susceptibility to Breast Cancer [J].
Boyd, Norman F. ;
Martin, Lisa J. ;
Bronskill, Michael ;
Yaffe, Martin J. ;
Duric, Neb ;
Minkin, Salomon .
JNCI-JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2010, 102 (16) :1224-1237
[4]   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
[5]   Assessing within-woman changes in mammographic density: a comparison of fully versus semi-automated area-based approaches [J].
Busana, Marta Cecilia ;
De Stavola, Bianca L. ;
Sovio, Ulla ;
Li, Jingmei ;
Moss, Sue ;
Humphreys, Keith ;
dos-Santos-Silva, Isabel .
CANCER CAUSES & CONTROL, 2016, 27 (04) :481-491
[6]   THE QUANTITATIVE-ANALYSIS OF MAMMOGRAPHIC DENSITIES [J].
BYNG, JW ;
BOYD, NF ;
FISHELL, E ;
JONG, RA ;
YAFFE, MJ .
PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 1994, 39 (10) :1629-1638
[7]   Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study [J].
Ciatto, Stefano ;
Houssami, Nehmat ;
Bernardi, Daniela ;
Caumo, Francesca ;
Pellegrini, Marco ;
Brunelli, Silvia ;
Tuttobene, Paola ;
Bricolo, Paola ;
Fanto, Carmine ;
Valentini, Marvi ;
Montemezzi, Stefania ;
Macaskill, Petra .
LANCET ONCOLOGY, 2013, 14 (07) :583-589
[8]   Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography compared to digital mammography alone: a cohort study within the PROSPR consortium [J].
Conant, Emily F. ;
Beaber, Elisabeth F. ;
Sprague, Brian L. ;
Herschorn, Sally D. ;
Weaver, Donald L. ;
Onega, Tracy ;
Tosteson, Anna N. A. ;
McCarthy, Anne Marie ;
Poplack, Steven P. ;
Haas, Jennifer S. ;
Armstrong, Katrina ;
Schnall, Mitchell D. ;
Barlow, William E. .
BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT, 2016, 156 (01) :109-116
[9]   Assessment of a fully automated, high-throughput mammographic density measurement tool for use with processed digital mammograms [J].
Couwenberg, A. M. ;
Verkooijen, H. M. ;
Li, J. ;
Pijnappel, R. M. ;
Charaghvandi, K. R. ;
Hartman, M. ;
van Gils, C. H. .
CANCER CAUSES & CONTROL, 2014, 25 (08) :1037-1043
[10]   Mammographic Parenchymal Patterns as an Imaging Marker of Endogenous Hormonal Exposure: A Preliminary Study in a High-Risk Population [J].
Daye, Dania ;
Keller, Brad ;
Conant, Emily F. ;
Chen, Jinbo ;
Schnall, Mitchell D. ;
Maidment, Andrew D. A. ;
Kontos, Despina .
ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 2013, 20 (05) :635-646