Cargando…

Measuring breast density: Comparing computer-automated breast density quantification with an observer-based method in a South African academic context

BACKGROUND: Dense breast tissue may not only ‘mask’ small, non-calcified cancers but also represents an independent risk factor for the development of breast cancer. Computer-automated breast density quantification (CABD) software tools have been developed for the calculation of volumetric breast de...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Prinsloo, Erica, Minné, Cornelia, Greeff, Wim
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: AOSIS 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6837799/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31754515
http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajr.v22i2.1358
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Dense breast tissue may not only ‘mask’ small, non-calcified cancers but also represents an independent risk factor for the development of breast cancer. Computer-automated breast density quantification (CABD) software tools have been developed for the calculation of volumetric breast density. OBJECTIVES: This study sought: (1) to compare observer-based breast density scores, using the fifth edition of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS), with the breast density scores calculated using CABD quantification software tools, (2) to determine inter-reader variability in breast density scoring between qualified radiologists, between radiologists in training (registrars) and between these two groups and (3) to determine intra-reader reliability in breast density scoring. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed using the data of 100 patients (200 breasts). Three qualified radiologists and three registrars were asked to review the mammograms in question and to assign a breast density score according to the fifth edition of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) reporting system. Two readings took place at a minimum of 30 days apart. The percentage agreement between the automated and observer-based scores was calculated and intra-reader and inter-reader reliability values were determined. RESULTS: The study found that there was poor agreement between the breast densities calculated by CABD and the more subjective observer-based BI-RADS density scores. These results further reflect a statistically significant degree of inter-reader and intra-reader variability in the evaluation of breast density. CONCLUSION: We conclude that the use of automated breast density quantification (i.e. CABD) is a valuable tool for the reduction of variability in breast density ratings.