Journal Article

Measuring mammographic density: comparing a fully automated volumetric assessment versus European radiologists’ qualitative classification

Timberg, Pontus, Zackrisson, Sophia, Sartor, Hanna, Rosso, Aldana, Lång, Kristina, Borgquist, Signe

2016

Overview

Objectives Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) mammographic density categories are associated with considerable interobserver variability. Automated methods of measuring volumetric breast density may reduce variability and be valuable in risk and mammographic screening stratification. Our objective was to assess agreement of mammographic density by a volumetric method with the radiologists’ classification. Methods Eight thousand seven hundred and eighty-two examinations from the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial were classified according to BI-RADS, 4th Edition. Volumetric breast density was assessed using automated software for 8433 examinations. Agreement between volumetric breast density and BI-RADS was descriptively analyzed. Agreement between radiologists and between categorical volumetric density and BI-RADS was calculated, rendering kappa values. Results The observed agreement between BI-RADS scores of different radiologists was 80.9 % [kappa 0.77 (0.76–0.79)]. A spread of volumetric breast density for each BI-RADS category was seen. The observed agreement between categorical volumetric density and BI-RADS scores was 57.1 % [kappa 0.55 (0.53-0.56)]. Conclusions There was moderate agreement between volumetric density and BI-RADS scores from European radiologists indicating that radiologists evaluate mammographic density differently than software. The automated method may be a robust and valuable tool; however, differences in interpretation between radiologists and software require further investigation. Key Points • Agreement between qualitative and software density measurements has not been frequently studied. • There was substantial agreement between different radiologists´ qualitative density assessments. • There was moderate agreement between software and radiologists’ density assessments. • Differences in interpretation between software and radiologists require further investigation.

• Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg,Springer Nature B.V
• Subject: Automation / Breast / Breast cancer / Breast Density - physiology / Breast Neoplasms - classification / Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging / Breast Neoplasms - pathology / Classification / Clinical Medicine / Diagnostic Radiology / Europe / Female / Humans / Imaging / Internal Medicine / Interventional Radiology / Klinisk medicin / Mammography / Mammography - methods / Medical and Health Sciences / Medicin och hälsovetenskap / Medicine / Medicine & Public Health / Methods / Middle Aged / Neuroradiology / Observer Variation / Oncology / Radiologi och bildbehandling / Radiologists - standards / Radiology / Radiology and Medical Imaging / Reproducibility / Software / Ultrasound