HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 2402041947v1 240/3/656    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Martin, K. E. Articles by Chan, H.-P. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Martin, K. E. Articles by Chan, H.-P.

Mammographic Density Measured with Quantitative Computer-aided Method: Comparison with Radiologists' Estimates and BI-RADS Categories¹

¹ From Associated Radiologists Limited, Mesa, Ariz (K.E.M.); Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Health Center, Ann Arbor, Mich (M.A.H., C.Z., M.A.R., J.E.B., C.P., C.E.B., K.A.K., H.P.C.); and Department of Surgery, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pa (S.S.S.). Received November 16, 2004; revision requested January 18, 2005; revision received April 3; accepted May 2; final version accepted November 7. Supported in part by U.S. Army Medical Research and Material Command grant DAMD 17-01-1-0326. Address correspondence to K.E.M., East Valley Diagnostic Imaging, 1125 E Southern Ave, Suite 200, Mesa, AZ 85204 (e-mail: yango{at}cox.net).

Purpose: To retrospectively compare computer-aided mammographic density estimation (MDEST) with radiologist estimates of percentage density and Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) density classification.

Materials and Methods: Institutional Review Board approval was obtained for this HIPAA-compliant study; patient informed consent requirements were waived. A fully automated MDEST computer program was used to measure breast density on digitized mammograms in 65 women (mean age, 53 years; range, 24–89 years). Pixel gray levels in detected breast borders were analyzed, and dense areas were segmented. Percentage density was calculated by dividing the number of dense pixels by the total number of pixels within the borders. Seven breast radiologists (five trained with MDEST, two not trained) prospectively assigned qualitative BI-RADS density categories and visually estimated percentage density on 260 mammograms. Qualitative BI-RADS assessments were compared with new quantitative BI-RADS standards. The reference standard density for this study was established by allowing the five trained radiologists to manipulate the MDEST gray-level thresholds, which segmented mammograms into dense and nondense areas. Statistical tests performed include Pearson correlation coefficients, Bland-Altman agreement method, statistics, and unpaired t tests.

Results: There was a close correlation between the reference standard and radiologist-estimated density (R = 0.90–0.95) and MDEST density (R = 0.89). Untrained radiologists overestimated percentage density by an average of 37%, versus 6% for trained radiologists (P < .001). MDEST showed better agreement with the reference standard (average overestimate, 1%; range, –15% to +18%). MDEST correlated better with percentage density than with qualitative BI-RADS categories. There were large overlaps and ranges of percentage density in qualitative BI-RADS categories 2–4. Qualitative BI-RADS categories correlated poorly with new quantitative BI-RADS categories, and 16 (6%) of 260 views were erroneously classified by MDEST.

Conclusion: MDEST compared favorably with radiologist estimates of percentage density and is more reproducible than radiologist estimates when qualitative BI-RADS density categories are used. Qualitative and quantitative BI-RADS density assessments differed markedly.

© RSNA, 2006

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. Kataoka, A. Antoniou, R. Warren, J. Leyland, J. Brown, T. Audley, and D. Easton Genetic Models for the Familial Aggregation of Mammographic Breast Density Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., April 1, 2009; 18(4): 1277 - 1284. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. A. Douglas, M.-H. Roy-Gagnon, C. Zhou, B. D. Mitchell, A. R. Shuldiner, H.-P. Chan, and M. A. Helvie Mammographic Breast Density--Evidence for Genetic Correlations with Established Breast Cancer Risk Factors Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., December 1, 2008; 17(12): 3509 - 3516. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. F. Boehm, T. Schneider, S. M. Buhmann-Kirchhoff, T. Schlossbauer, D. Rjosk-Dendorfer, S. Britsch, and M. Reiser Automated Classification of Breast Parenchymal Density: Topologic Analysis of X-Ray Attenuation Patterns Depicted with Digital Mammography Am. J. Roentgenol., December 1, 2008; 191(6): W275 - W282. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. A. Tice, S. R. Cummings, R. Smith-Bindman, L. Ichikawa, W. E. Barlow, and K. Kerlikowske Using Clinical Factors and Mammographic Breast Density to Estimate Breast Cancer Risk: Development and Validation of a New Predictive Model Ann Intern Med, March 4, 2008; 148(5): 337 - 347. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. Z. Bigenwald, E. Warner, A. Gunasekara, K. A. Hill, P. A. Causer, S. J. Messner, A. Eisen, D. B. Plewes, S. A. Narod, L. Zhang, et al. Is Mammography Adequate for Screening Women with Inherited BRCA Mutations and Low Breast Density? Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., March 1, 2008; 17(3): 706 - 711. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				F. M. Hall and K. E. Martin, MD Mammographic Density Categories Radiology, October 1, 2007; 245(1): 300 - 302. [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. S.M. Buist, E. J. Aiello, D. L. Miglioretti, and E. White Mammographic Breast Density, Dense Area, and Breast Area Differences by Phase in the Menstrual Cycle. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., November 1, 2006; 15(11): 2303 - 2306. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]