Cargando…

Density is in the eye of the beholder: visual versus semi-automated assessment of breast density on standard mammograms

OBJECTIVES: Visual inspection is generally used to assess breast density. Our study aim was to compare visual assessment of breast density of experienced and inexperienced readers with semi-automated analysis of breast density. METHODS: Breast density was assessed by an experienced and an inexperien...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lobbes, M. B. I., Cleutjens, J. P. M., Lima Passos, V., Frotscher, C., Lahaye, M. J., Keymeulen, K. B. M. I., Beets-Tan, R. G., Wildberger, J., Boetes, C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer-Verlag 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3292640/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22696002
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13244-011-0139-7
_version_ 1782225303989387264
author Lobbes, M. B. I.
Cleutjens, J. P. M.
Lima Passos, V.
Frotscher, C.
Lahaye, M. J.
Keymeulen, K. B. M. I.
Beets-Tan, R. G.
Wildberger, J.
Boetes, C.
author_facet Lobbes, M. B. I.
Cleutjens, J. P. M.
Lima Passos, V.
Frotscher, C.
Lahaye, M. J.
Keymeulen, K. B. M. I.
Beets-Tan, R. G.
Wildberger, J.
Boetes, C.
author_sort Lobbes, M. B. I.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: Visual inspection is generally used to assess breast density. Our study aim was to compare visual assessment of breast density of experienced and inexperienced readers with semi-automated analysis of breast density. METHODS: Breast density was assessed by an experienced and an inexperienced reader in 200 mammograms and scored according to the quantitative BI-RADS classification. Breast density was also assessed by dedicated software using a semi-automated thresholding technique. Agreement between breast density classification of both readers as well as agreement between their assessment versus the semi-automated analysis as reference standard was expressed as the weighted kappa value. RESULTS: Using the semi-automated analysis, agreement between breast density measurements of both breasts in both projections was excellent (ICC >0.9, P < 0.0001). Reproducibility of the semi-automated analysis was excellent (ICC >0.8, P < 0.0001). The experienced reader correctly classified the BI-RADS breast density classification in 58.5% of the cases. Classification was overestimated in 35.5% of the cases and underestimated in 6.0% of the cases. Results of the inexperienced reader were less accurate. Agreement between the classification of both readers versus the semi-automated analysis was considered only moderate with weighted kappa values of 0.367 (experienced reader) and 0.232 (inexperienced reader). CONCLUSION: Visual assessment of breast density on mammograms is inaccurate and observer-dependent.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3292640
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher Springer-Verlag
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-32926402012-03-16 Density is in the eye of the beholder: visual versus semi-automated assessment of breast density on standard mammograms Lobbes, M. B. I. Cleutjens, J. P. M. Lima Passos, V. Frotscher, C. Lahaye, M. J. Keymeulen, K. B. M. I. Beets-Tan, R. G. Wildberger, J. Boetes, C. Insights Imaging Original Article OBJECTIVES: Visual inspection is generally used to assess breast density. Our study aim was to compare visual assessment of breast density of experienced and inexperienced readers with semi-automated analysis of breast density. METHODS: Breast density was assessed by an experienced and an inexperienced reader in 200 mammograms and scored according to the quantitative BI-RADS classification. Breast density was also assessed by dedicated software using a semi-automated thresholding technique. Agreement between breast density classification of both readers as well as agreement between their assessment versus the semi-automated analysis as reference standard was expressed as the weighted kappa value. RESULTS: Using the semi-automated analysis, agreement between breast density measurements of both breasts in both projections was excellent (ICC >0.9, P < 0.0001). Reproducibility of the semi-automated analysis was excellent (ICC >0.8, P < 0.0001). The experienced reader correctly classified the BI-RADS breast density classification in 58.5% of the cases. Classification was overestimated in 35.5% of the cases and underestimated in 6.0% of the cases. Results of the inexperienced reader were less accurate. Agreement between the classification of both readers versus the semi-automated analysis was considered only moderate with weighted kappa values of 0.367 (experienced reader) and 0.232 (inexperienced reader). CONCLUSION: Visual assessment of breast density on mammograms is inaccurate and observer-dependent. Springer-Verlag 2011-11-20 /pmc/articles/PMC3292640/ /pubmed/22696002 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13244-011-0139-7 Text en © European Society of Radiology 2011
spellingShingle Original Article
Lobbes, M. B. I.
Cleutjens, J. P. M.
Lima Passos, V.
Frotscher, C.
Lahaye, M. J.
Keymeulen, K. B. M. I.
Beets-Tan, R. G.
Wildberger, J.
Boetes, C.
Density is in the eye of the beholder: visual versus semi-automated assessment of breast density on standard mammograms
title Density is in the eye of the beholder: visual versus semi-automated assessment of breast density on standard mammograms
title_full Density is in the eye of the beholder: visual versus semi-automated assessment of breast density on standard mammograms
title_fullStr Density is in the eye of the beholder: visual versus semi-automated assessment of breast density on standard mammograms
title_full_unstemmed Density is in the eye of the beholder: visual versus semi-automated assessment of breast density on standard mammograms
title_short Density is in the eye of the beholder: visual versus semi-automated assessment of breast density on standard mammograms
title_sort density is in the eye of the beholder: visual versus semi-automated assessment of breast density on standard mammograms
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3292640/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22696002
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13244-011-0139-7
work_keys_str_mv AT lobbesmbi densityisintheeyeofthebeholdervisualversussemiautomatedassessmentofbreastdensityonstandardmammograms
AT cleutjensjpm densityisintheeyeofthebeholdervisualversussemiautomatedassessmentofbreastdensityonstandardmammograms
AT limapassosv densityisintheeyeofthebeholdervisualversussemiautomatedassessmentofbreastdensityonstandardmammograms
AT frotscherc densityisintheeyeofthebeholdervisualversussemiautomatedassessmentofbreastdensityonstandardmammograms
AT lahayemj densityisintheeyeofthebeholdervisualversussemiautomatedassessmentofbreastdensityonstandardmammograms
AT keymeulenkbmi densityisintheeyeofthebeholdervisualversussemiautomatedassessmentofbreastdensityonstandardmammograms
AT beetstanrg densityisintheeyeofthebeholdervisualversussemiautomatedassessmentofbreastdensityonstandardmammograms
AT wildbergerj densityisintheeyeofthebeholdervisualversussemiautomatedassessmentofbreastdensityonstandardmammograms
AT boetesc densityisintheeyeofthebeholdervisualversussemiautomatedassessmentofbreastdensityonstandardmammograms