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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |