Evaluation of breast parenchymal density with QUANTRA software

Purpose: To evaluate breast parenchymal density using QUANTRA software and to correlate numerical breast density values obtained from QUANTRA with ACR BI-RADS breast density categories. Materials and Methods: Two-view digital mammograms of 545 consecutive women (mean age - 47.7 years) were categorized visually by three independent radiologists into one of the four ACR BI-RADS categories (D1-D4). Numerical breast density values as obtained by QUANTRA software were then used to establish the cutoff values for each category using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis. Results: Numerical breast density values obtained by QUANTRA (range - 7-42%) were systematically lower than visual estimates. QUANTRA breast density value of less than 14.5% could accurately differentiate category D1 from the categories D2, D3, and D4 [area under curve (AUC) on ROC analysis - 94.09%, sensitivity - 85.71%, specificity - 84.21%]. QUANTRA density values of <19.5% accurately differentiated categories D1 and D2 from D3 and D4 (AUC - 94.4%, sensitivity - 87.50%, specificity - 84.60%); QUANTRA density values of <26.5% accurately differentiated categories D1, D2, and D3 from category D4 (AUC - 90.75%, sensitivity - 88.89%, specificity - 88.621%). Conclusions: Breast density values obtained by QUANTRA software can be used to obtain objective cutoff values for each ACR BI-RADS breast density category. Although the numerical density values obtained by QUANTRA are lower than visual estimates, they correlate well with the BI-RADS breast density categories assigned visually to the mammograms.

[1]  Camille Arianne Dollins,et al.  An evaluation of breast radiological density assessment by Quantra software as compared to visual classification , 2015 .

[2]  David Gur,et al.  Computerized assessment of tissue composition on digitized mammograms. , 2002, Academic radiology.

[3]  Heang-Ping Chan,et al.  Mammographic density measured with quantitative computer-aided method: comparison with radiologists' estimates and BI-RADS categories. , 2006, Radiology.

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

[5]  Ralph Highnam,et al.  Volumetric Assessment of Breast Tissue Composition from FFDM Images , 2008, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

[6]  A. Jemal,et al.  Cancer statistics, 2013 , 2013, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[7]  N. Obuchowski,et al.  Automatic segmentation of mammographic density. , 2001, Academic radiology.

[8]  Berkman Sahiner,et al.  Computerized image analysis: estimation of breast density on mammograms , 2000, Medical Imaging: Image Processing.

[9]  Opper,et al.  HERITABILITY OF MAMMOGRAPHIC DENSITY, A RISK FACTOR FOR BREAST CANCER , 2002 .

[10]  Malcolm C Pike,et al.  Does mammographic density reflect ethnic differences in breast cancer incidence rates? , 2004, American journal of epidemiology.

[11]  J. Wolfe Risk for breast cancer development determined by mammographic parenchymal pattern , 1976, Cancer.

[12]  Jennifer A Harvey,et al.  Quantitative assessment of mammographic breast density: relationship with breast cancer risk. , 2004, Radiology.

[13]  N Karssemeijer,et al.  Automated classification of parenchymal patterns in mammograms. , 1998, Physics in medicine and biology.

[14]  S Ciatto,et al.  A prospective study of the value of mammographic patterns as indicators of breast cancer risk in a screening experience. , 1993, European journal of radiology.

[15]  C. D'Orsi,et al.  Influence of computer-aided detection on performance of screening mammography. , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.