Skip to main content
Erschienen in: European Radiology 7/2019

15.02.2019 | Breast

A new automated method to evaluate 2D mammographic breast density according to BI-RADS® Atlas Fifth Edition recommendations

verfasst von: Corinne Balleyguier, Julia Arfi-Rouche, Bruno Boyer, Emilien Gauthier, Valerie Helin, Ara Loshkajian, Stephane Ragusa, Suzette Delaloge

Erschienen in: European Radiology | Ausgabe 7/2019

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objectives

Radiologists’ visual assessment of breast mammographic density (BMD) is subject to inter-observer variability. We aimed to develop and validate a new automated software tool mimicking expert radiologists’ consensus assessments of 2D BMD, as per BI-RADS V recommendations.

Methods

The software algorithm was developed using a concept of Manhattan distance to compare a patient’s mammographic image to reference mammograms with an assigned BMD category. Reference databases were built from a total of 2289 pairs (cranio-caudal and medio-lateral oblique views) of 2D full-field digital mammography (FFDM). Each image was independently assessed for BMD by a consensus of radiologists specialized in breast imaging. A validation set of additional 800 image pairs was evaluated for BMD both by the software and seven blinded radiologists specialized in breast imaging. The median score was used for consensus. Software reproducibility was assessed using FFDM image pairs from 214 patients in the validation set to compare BMD assessment between left and right breasts.

Results

The software showed a substantial agreement with the radiologists’ consensus (unweighted κ = 0.68, 95% CI 0.64–0.72) when considering the four breast density categories, and an almost perfect agreement (unweighted κ = 0.84, 95% CI 0.80–0.88) when considering clinically significant non-dense (A-B) and dense (C-D) categories. Correlation between left and right breasts was high (rs = 0.87; 95% CI 0.84–0.90).

Conclusions

BMD assessment by the software was strongly correlated to radiologists’ consensus assessments of BMD. Its performance should be compared to other methods, and its clinical utility evaluated in a risk assessment model.

Key Points

A new software tool assesses breast density in a standardized way.
The tool mimics radiologists’ clinical assessment of breast density.
It may be incorporated in a breast cancer risk assessment model.
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Harvey JA, Bovbjerg VE (2004) Quantitative assessment of mammographic breast density: relationship with breast cancer risk. Radiology 230:29–41CrossRefPubMed Harvey JA, Bovbjerg VE (2004) Quantitative assessment of mammographic breast density: relationship with breast cancer risk. Radiology 230:29–41CrossRefPubMed
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Vacek PM, Geller BM (2004) A prospective study of breast cancer risk using routine mammographic breast density measurements. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 13:715–722PubMed Vacek PM, Geller BM (2004) A prospective study of breast cancer risk using routine mammographic breast density measurements. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 13:715–722PubMed
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Boyd NF, Rommens JM, Vogt K et al (2005) Mammographic breast density as an intermediate phenotype for breast cancer. Lancet Oncol 6:798–808CrossRefPubMed Boyd NF, Rommens JM, Vogt K et al (2005) Mammographic breast density as an intermediate phenotype for breast cancer. Lancet Oncol 6:798–808CrossRefPubMed
4.
Zurück zum Zitat McCormack VA, dos Santos Silva I (2006) Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 15:1159–1169CrossRefPubMed McCormack VA, dos Santos Silva I (2006) Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 15:1159–1169CrossRefPubMed
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ et al (2007) Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 356:227–236CrossRefPubMed Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ et al (2007) Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 356:227–236CrossRefPubMed
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Sickles EA, D'Orsi CJ, Bassett LW et al (2013) ACR BI-RADS® atlas, breast imaging reporting and data system. American College of Radiology, Reston Sickles EA, D'Orsi CJ, Bassett LW et al (2013) ACR BI-RADS® atlas, breast imaging reporting and data system. American College of Radiology, Reston
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Ciatto S, Houssami N, Apruzzese A et al (2005) Categorizing breast mammographic density: intra- and interobserver reproducibility of BI-RADS density categories. Breast 14:269–275CrossRefPubMed Ciatto S, Houssami N, Apruzzese A et al (2005) Categorizing breast mammographic density: intra- and interobserver reproducibility of BI-RADS density categories. Breast 14:269–275CrossRefPubMed
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Lobbes MB, Cleutjens JP, Lima Passos V et al (2012) Density is in the eye of the beholder: visual versus semi-automated assessment of breast density on standard mammograms. Insights Imaging 3:91–99CrossRefPubMed Lobbes MB, Cleutjens JP, Lima Passos V et al (2012) Density is in the eye of the beholder: visual versus semi-automated assessment of breast density on standard mammograms. Insights Imaging 3:91–99CrossRefPubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Sprague BL, Conant EF, Onega T et al (2016) Variation in mammographic breast density assessments among radiologists in clinical practice: a multicenter observational study. Ann Intern Med 165:457–464CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Sprague BL, Conant EF, Onega T et al (2016) Variation in mammographic breast density assessments among radiologists in clinical practice: a multicenter observational study. Ann Intern Med 165:457–464CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Ng KH, Yip CH, Taib NA (2012) Standardisation of clinical breast-density measurement. Lancet Oncol 13:334–336CrossRefPubMed Ng KH, Yip CH, Taib NA (2012) Standardisation of clinical breast-density measurement. Lancet Oncol 13:334–336CrossRefPubMed
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Brandt KR, Scott CG, Ma L et al (2016) Comparison of clinical and automated breast density measurements: implications for risk prediction and supplemental screening. Radiology 279:710–719CrossRefPubMed Brandt KR, Scott CG, Ma L et al (2016) Comparison of clinical and automated breast density measurements: implications for risk prediction and supplemental screening. Radiology 279:710–719CrossRefPubMed
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Jeffers AM, Sieh W, Lipson JA et al (2017) Breast cancer risk and mammographic density assessed with semiautomated and fully automated methods and BI-RADS. Radiology 282:348–355CrossRefPubMed Jeffers AM, Sieh W, Lipson JA et al (2017) Breast cancer risk and mammographic density assessed with semiautomated and fully automated methods and BI-RADS. Radiology 282:348–355CrossRefPubMed
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Aitken Z, McCormack VA, Highnam RP et al (2010) Screen-film mammographic density and breast cancer risk: a comparison of the volumetric standard mammogram form and the interactive threshold measurement methods. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 19:418–428CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Aitken Z, McCormack VA, Highnam RP et al (2010) Screen-film mammographic density and breast cancer risk: a comparison of the volumetric standard mammogram form and the interactive threshold measurement methods. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 19:418–428CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Wanders JOP, Holland K, Karssemeijer N et al (2017) The effect of volumetric breast density on the risk of screen-detected and interval breast cancers: a cohort study. Breast Cancer Res 19:67CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Wanders JOP, Holland K, Karssemeijer N et al (2017) The effect of volumetric breast density on the risk of screen-detected and interval breast cancers: a cohort study. Breast Cancer Res 19:67CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Kerlikowske K, Ma L, Scott CG et al (2017) Combining quantitative and qualitative breast density measures to assess breast cancer risk. Breast Cancer Res 19:97CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Kerlikowske K, Ma L, Scott CG et al (2017) Combining quantitative and qualitative breast density measures to assess breast cancer risk. Breast Cancer Res 19:97CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Astley SM, Harkness EF, Sergeant JC et al (2018) A comparison of five methods of measuring mammographic density: a case-control study. Breast Cancer Res 20:10CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Astley SM, Harkness EF, Sergeant JC et al (2018) A comparison of five methods of measuring mammographic density: a case-control study. Breast Cancer Res 20:10CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Destounis S, Arieno A, Morgan R, Roberts C, Chan A (2017) Qualitative versus quantitative mammographic breast density assessment: applications for the US and abroad. Diagnostics (Basel) 7:30CrossRef Destounis S, Arieno A, Morgan R, Roberts C, Chan A (2017) Qualitative versus quantitative mammographic breast density assessment: applications for the US and abroad. Diagnostics (Basel) 7:30CrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Cohen J (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 20:37–46CrossRef Cohen J (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 20:37–46CrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Cohen J (1968) Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull 70:213–220CrossRefPubMed Cohen J (1968) Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull 70:213–220CrossRefPubMed
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174CrossRefPubMed Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174CrossRefPubMed
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Youk JH, Gweon HM, Son EJ, Kim JA (2016) Automated volumetric breast density measurements in the era of the BI-RADS fifth edition: a comparison with visual assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 206:1056–1062CrossRefPubMed Youk JH, Gweon HM, Son EJ, Kim JA (2016) Automated volumetric breast density measurements in the era of the BI-RADS fifth edition: a comparison with visual assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 206:1056–1062CrossRefPubMed
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Sartor H, Lång K, Rosso A, Borgquist S, Zackrisson S, Timberg P (2016) Measuring mammographic density: comparing a fully automated volumetric assessment versus European radiologists' qualitative classification. Eur Radiol 26:4354–4360CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Sartor H, Lång K, Rosso A, Borgquist S, Zackrisson S, Timberg P (2016) Measuring mammographic density: comparing a fully automated volumetric assessment versus European radiologists' qualitative classification. Eur Radiol 26:4354–4360CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Gastounioti A, Conant EF, Kontos D (2016) Beyond breast density: a review on the advancing role of parenchymal texture analysis in breast cancer risk assessment. Breast Cancer Res 18:91CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Gastounioti A, Conant EF, Kontos D (2016) Beyond breast density: a review on the advancing role of parenchymal texture analysis in breast cancer risk assessment. Breast Cancer Res 18:91CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Malkov S, Shepherd JA, Scott CG et al (2016) Mammographic texture and risk of breast cancer by tumor type and estrogen receptor status. Breast Cancer Res 18:122CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Malkov S, Shepherd JA, Scott CG et al (2016) Mammographic texture and risk of breast cancer by tumor type and estrogen receptor status. Breast Cancer Res 18:122CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Wang C, Brentnall AR, Cuzick J, Harkness EF, Evans DG, Astley S (2017) A novel and fully automated mammographic texture analysis for risk prediction: results from two case-control studies. Breast Cancer Res 19:114CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Wang C, Brentnall AR, Cuzick J, Harkness EF, Evans DG, Astley S (2017) A novel and fully automated mammographic texture analysis for risk prediction: results from two case-control studies. Breast Cancer Res 19:114CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening (2012) The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet 380:1778–1786CrossRef Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening (2012) The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet 380:1778–1786CrossRef
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Kerlikowske K (2009) Evidence-based breast cancer prevention: the importance of individual risk. Ann Intern Med 151:750–752CrossRefPubMed Kerlikowske K (2009) Evidence-based breast cancer prevention: the importance of individual risk. Ann Intern Med 151:750–752CrossRefPubMed
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Weigert J, Cavanaugh N, Ju T (2018) Evaluating mammographer acceptance of MammoRisk software. Radiol Technol 89:344–350PubMed Weigert J, Cavanaugh N, Ju T (2018) Evaluating mammographer acceptance of MammoRisk software. Radiol Technol 89:344–350PubMed
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Kopans DB (2008) Basic physics and doubts about relationship between mammographically determined tissue density and breast cancer risk. Radiology 246:348–353CrossRefPubMed Kopans DB (2008) Basic physics and doubts about relationship between mammographically determined tissue density and breast cancer risk. Radiology 246:348–353CrossRefPubMed
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Hooley RJ, Durand MA, Philpotts LE (2017) Advances in digital breast tomosynthesis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 208:256–266CrossRefPubMed Hooley RJ, Durand MA, Philpotts LE (2017) Advances in digital breast tomosynthesis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 208:256–266CrossRefPubMed
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Gweon HM, Youk JH, Kim JA, Son EJ (2013) Radiologist assessment of breast density by BI-RADS categories versus fully automated volumetric assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 201:692–697CrossRefPubMed Gweon HM, Youk JH, Kim JA, Son EJ (2013) Radiologist assessment of breast density by BI-RADS categories versus fully automated volumetric assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 201:692–697CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
A new automated method to evaluate 2D mammographic breast density according to BI-RADS® Atlas Fifth Edition recommendations
verfasst von
Corinne Balleyguier
Julia Arfi-Rouche
Bruno Boyer
Emilien Gauthier
Valerie Helin
Ara Loshkajian
Stephane Ragusa
Suzette Delaloge
Publikationsdatum
15.02.2019
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
European Radiology / Ausgabe 7/2019
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06016-y

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 7/2019

European Radiology 7/2019 Zur Ausgabe

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.