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

AbstractObjectivesBreast 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.MethodsEight 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.ResultsThe 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)].ConclusionsThere 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.

[1]  Lorraine Tucker,et al.  Mammographic breast density: comparison of methods for quantitative evaluation. , 2015, Radiology.

[2]  Karla Kerlikowske,et al.  Agreement of Mammographic Measures of Volumetric Breast Density to MRI , 2013, PloS one.

[3]  P. Langenberg,et al.  Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: inter- and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment. , 2000, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[4]  M. McHugh.  Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic , 2012, Biochemia medica.

[6]  K. Kerlikowske,et al.  Variability and accuracy in mammographic interpretation using the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. , 1998, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[7]  Kamila Czene,et al.  Change of mammographic density predicts the risk of contralateral breast cancer - a case-control study , 2013, Breast Cancer Research.

[8]  Karla Kerlikowske,et al.  Volume of Mammographic Density and Risk of Breast Cancer , 2011, Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

[9]  Manuela Durando,et al.  A first evaluation of breast radiological density assessment by QUANTRA software as compared to visual classification. , 2012, Breast.

[10]  Nico Karssemeijer,et al.  Volumetric Breast Density Estimation from Full-Field Digital Mammograms: A Validation Study , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[11]  B. Han,et al.  Automated volumetric breast density estimation: a comparison with visual assessment. , 2013, Clinical radiology.

[12]  J M Bland,et al.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement , 1986 .

[13]  S. Ciatto,et al.  Categorizing breast mammographic density: intra- and interobserver reproducibility of BI-RADS density categories. , 2005, Breast.

[14]  J. Hopper,et al.  Mammographic density—a review on the current understanding of its association with breast cancer , 2014, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[15]  M. Eijkemans,et al.  Mammography: interobserver variability in breast density assessment. , 2007, Breast.

[16]  Anders Tingberg,et al.  Performance of one-view breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone breast cancer screening modality: results from the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial, a population-based study , 2015, European Radiology.

[17]  G. Maskarinec,et al.  Ethnic differences in mammographic densities. , 2001, International journal of epidemiology.

[18]  L. Liberman,et al.  Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). , 2002, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[19]  D. Altman,et al.  STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT , 1986, The Lancet.

[20]  Nico Karssemeijer,et al.  Robust breast composition measurement - Volpara™ , 2010 .

[21]  Jingmei Li,et al.  Digital mammographic density and breast cancer risk: a case–control study of six alternative density assessment methods , 2014, Breast Cancer Research.

[22]  Nico Karssemeijer,et al.  Robust Breast Composition Measurement - VolparaTM , 2010, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

[23]  J. Youk,et al.  Radiologist assessment of breast density by BI-RADS categories versus fully automated volumetric assessment. , 2013, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[24]  Antonella Petrillo,et al.  Mammographic density: Comparison of visual assessment with fully automatic calculation on a multivendor dataset , 2018, European Radiology.

[25]  Olivier Alonzo-Proulx,et al.  Reliability of automated breast density measurements. , 2015, Radiology.

[26]  Stephen W Duffy,et al.  Risk determination and prevention of breast cancer , 2014, Breast Cancer Research.

[27]  Jungnam Joo,et al.  High Volumetric Breast Density Predicts Risk for Breast Cancer in Postmenopausal, but not Premenopausal, Korean Women , 2014, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[28]  V. McCormack,et al.  Breast Density and Parenchymal Patterns as Markers of Breast Cancer Risk: A Meta-analysis , 2006, Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention.

[29]  S. Duffy,et al.  Tamoxifen-induced reduction in mammographic density and breast cancer risk reduction: a nested case-control study. , 2011, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[30]  Mireille J. M. Broeders,et al.  Comparing Visually Assessed BI-RADS Breast Density and Automated Volumetric Breast Density Software: A Cross-Sectional Study in a Breast Cancer Screening Setting , 2015, PloS one.

[31]  Shuyan Sun,et al.  Meta-analysis of Cohen’s kappa , 2011, Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology.

[32]  M. Yaffe.  Mammographic density. Measurement of mammographic density , 2008, Breast Cancer Research.

[33]  N. Boyd,et al.  Mammographic density and breast cancer risk: current understanding and future prospects , 2011, Breast Cancer Research.

[34]  Gina R Petroni,et al.  Accuracy of assigned BI-RADS breast density category definitions. , 2006, Academic radiology.

[35]  Han Na Lee,et al.  Comparison of mammographic density estimation by Volpara software with radiologists' visual assessment: analysis of clinical–radiologic factors affecting discrepancy between them , 2015, Acta radiologica.