Cargando…

Evaluation of Quantra Hologic Volumetric Computerized Breast Density Software in Comparison With Manual Interpretation in a Diverse Population

OBJECTIVE: Increased mammographic breast density is a well-established risk factor for breast cancer development, regardless of age or ethnic background. The current gold standard for categorizing breast density consists of a radiologist estimation of percent density according to the American Colleg...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Richard-Davis, Gloria, Whittemore, Brianna, Disher, Anthony, Rice, Valerie Montgomery, Lenin, Rathinasamy B, Dollins, Camille, Siegel, Eric R, Eswaran, Hari
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5826095/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29511356
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1178223418759296
_version_ 1783302289260281856
author Richard-Davis, Gloria
Whittemore, Brianna
Disher, Anthony
Rice, Valerie Montgomery
Lenin, Rathinasamy B
Dollins, Camille
Siegel, Eric R
Eswaran, Hari
author_facet Richard-Davis, Gloria
Whittemore, Brianna
Disher, Anthony
Rice, Valerie Montgomery
Lenin, Rathinasamy B
Dollins, Camille
Siegel, Eric R
Eswaran, Hari
author_sort Richard-Davis, Gloria
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: Increased mammographic breast density is a well-established risk factor for breast cancer development, regardless of age or ethnic background. The current gold standard for categorizing breast density consists of a radiologist estimation of percent density according to the American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) criteria. This study compares paired qualitative interpretations of breast density on digital mammograms with quantitative measurement of density using Hologic’s Food and Drug Administration–approved R2 Quantra volumetric breast density assessment tool. Our goal was to find the best cutoff value of Quantra-calculated breast density for stratifying patients accurately into high-risk and low-risk breast density categories. METHODS: Screening digital mammograms from 385 subjects, aged 18 to 64 years, were evaluated. These mammograms were interpreted by a radiologist using the ACR’s BI-RADS density method, and had quantitative density measured using the R2 Quantra breast density assessment tool. The appropriate cutoff for breast density–based risk stratification using Quantra software was calculated using manually determined BI-RADS scores as a gold standard, in which scores of D3/D4 denoted high-risk densities and D1/D2 denoted low-risk densities. RESULTS: The best cutoff value for risk stratification using Quantra-calculated breast density was found to be 14.0%, yielding a sensitivity of 65%, specificity of 77%, and positive and negative predictive values of 75% and 69%, respectively. Under bootstrap analysis, the best cutoff value had a mean ± SD of 13.70% ± 0.89%. CONCLUSIONS: Our study is the first to publish on a North American population that assesses the accuracy of the R2 Quantra system at breast density stratification. Quantitative breast density measures will improve accuracy and reliability of density determination, assisting future researchers to accurately calculate breast cancer risks associated with density increase.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5826095
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58260952018-03-06 Evaluation of Quantra Hologic Volumetric Computerized Breast Density Software in Comparison With Manual Interpretation in a Diverse Population Richard-Davis, Gloria Whittemore, Brianna Disher, Anthony Rice, Valerie Montgomery Lenin, Rathinasamy B Dollins, Camille Siegel, Eric R Eswaran, Hari Breast Cancer (Auckl) Original Research OBJECTIVE: Increased mammographic breast density is a well-established risk factor for breast cancer development, regardless of age or ethnic background. The current gold standard for categorizing breast density consists of a radiologist estimation of percent density according to the American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) criteria. This study compares paired qualitative interpretations of breast density on digital mammograms with quantitative measurement of density using Hologic’s Food and Drug Administration–approved R2 Quantra volumetric breast density assessment tool. Our goal was to find the best cutoff value of Quantra-calculated breast density for stratifying patients accurately into high-risk and low-risk breast density categories. METHODS: Screening digital mammograms from 385 subjects, aged 18 to 64 years, were evaluated. These mammograms were interpreted by a radiologist using the ACR’s BI-RADS density method, and had quantitative density measured using the R2 Quantra breast density assessment tool. The appropriate cutoff for breast density–based risk stratification using Quantra software was calculated using manually determined BI-RADS scores as a gold standard, in which scores of D3/D4 denoted high-risk densities and D1/D2 denoted low-risk densities. RESULTS: The best cutoff value for risk stratification using Quantra-calculated breast density was found to be 14.0%, yielding a sensitivity of 65%, specificity of 77%, and positive and negative predictive values of 75% and 69%, respectively. Under bootstrap analysis, the best cutoff value had a mean ± SD of 13.70% ± 0.89%. CONCLUSIONS: Our study is the first to publish on a North American population that assesses the accuracy of the R2 Quantra system at breast density stratification. Quantitative breast density measures will improve accuracy and reliability of density determination, assisting future researchers to accurately calculate breast cancer risks associated with density increase. SAGE Publications 2018-02-22 /pmc/articles/PMC5826095/ /pubmed/29511356 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1178223418759296 Text en © The Author(s) 2018 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Original Research
Richard-Davis, Gloria
Whittemore, Brianna
Disher, Anthony
Rice, Valerie Montgomery
Lenin, Rathinasamy B
Dollins, Camille
Siegel, Eric R
Eswaran, Hari
Evaluation of Quantra Hologic Volumetric Computerized Breast Density Software in Comparison With Manual Interpretation in a Diverse Population
title Evaluation of Quantra Hologic Volumetric Computerized Breast Density Software in Comparison With Manual Interpretation in a Diverse Population
title_full Evaluation of Quantra Hologic Volumetric Computerized Breast Density Software in Comparison With Manual Interpretation in a Diverse Population
title_fullStr Evaluation of Quantra Hologic Volumetric Computerized Breast Density Software in Comparison With Manual Interpretation in a Diverse Population
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of Quantra Hologic Volumetric Computerized Breast Density Software in Comparison With Manual Interpretation in a Diverse Population
title_short Evaluation of Quantra Hologic Volumetric Computerized Breast Density Software in Comparison With Manual Interpretation in a Diverse Population
title_sort evaluation of quantra hologic volumetric computerized breast density software in comparison with manual interpretation in a diverse population
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5826095/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29511356
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1178223418759296
work_keys_str_mv AT richarddavisgloria evaluationofquantrahologicvolumetriccomputerizedbreastdensitysoftwareincomparisonwithmanualinterpretationinadiversepopulation
AT whittemorebrianna evaluationofquantrahologicvolumetriccomputerizedbreastdensitysoftwareincomparisonwithmanualinterpretationinadiversepopulation
AT disheranthony evaluationofquantrahologicvolumetriccomputerizedbreastdensitysoftwareincomparisonwithmanualinterpretationinadiversepopulation
AT ricevaleriemontgomery evaluationofquantrahologicvolumetriccomputerizedbreastdensitysoftwareincomparisonwithmanualinterpretationinadiversepopulation
AT leninrathinasamyb evaluationofquantrahologicvolumetriccomputerizedbreastdensitysoftwareincomparisonwithmanualinterpretationinadiversepopulation
AT dollinscamille evaluationofquantrahologicvolumetriccomputerizedbreastdensitysoftwareincomparisonwithmanualinterpretationinadiversepopulation
AT siegelericr evaluationofquantrahologicvolumetriccomputerizedbreastdensitysoftwareincomparisonwithmanualinterpretationinadiversepopulation
AT eswaranhari evaluationofquantrahologicvolumetriccomputerizedbreastdensitysoftwareincomparisonwithmanualinterpretationinadiversepopulation