Mammographic density estimation with automated volumetric breast density measurement

Su Yeon Ko, Eun Kyung Kim, Min Jung Kim, Hee Jung Moon

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

18 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective To compare automated volumetric breast density measurement (VBDM) with radiologists' evaluations based on the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS), and to identify the factors associated with technical failure of VBDM. Materials and Methods In this study, 1129 women aged 19-82 years who underwent mammography from December 2011 to January 2012 were included. Breast density evaluations by radiologists based on BI-RADS and by VBDM (Volpara Version 1.5.1) were compared. The agreement in interpreting breast density between radiologists and VBDM was determined based on four density grades (D1, D2, D3, and D4) and a binary classification of fatty (D1-2) vs. dense (D3-4) breast using kappa statistics. The association between technical failure of VBDM and patient age, total breast volume, fibroglandular tissue volume, history of partial mastectomy, the frequency of mass > 3 cm, and breast density was analyzed. Results The agreement between breast density evaluations by radiologists and VBDM was fair (k value = 0.26) when the four density grades (D1/D2/D3/D4) were used and moderate (k value = 0.47) for the binary classification (D1-2/D3-4). Twenty-seven women (2.4%) showed failure of VBDM. Small total breast volume, history of partial mastectomy, and high breast density were significantly associated with technical failure of VBDM (p = 0.001 to 0.015). Conclusion There is fair or moderate agreement in breast density evaluation between radiologists and VBDM. Technical failure of VBDM may be related to small total breast volume, a history of partial mastectomy, and high breast density.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)313-321
Number of pages9
JournalKorean journal of radiology
Volume15
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2014 Jan 1

Fingerprint

Breast
Segmental Mastectomy
Breast Density
Information Systems
Mammography
Radiologists

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

@article{7e3a444007584b7a9bcc4de3b433059a,
title = "Mammographic density estimation with automated volumetric breast density measurement",
abstract = "Objective To compare automated volumetric breast density measurement (VBDM) with radiologists' evaluations based on the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS), and to identify the factors associated with technical failure of VBDM. Materials and Methods In this study, 1129 women aged 19-82 years who underwent mammography from December 2011 to January 2012 were included. Breast density evaluations by radiologists based on BI-RADS and by VBDM (Volpara Version 1.5.1) were compared. The agreement in interpreting breast density between radiologists and VBDM was determined based on four density grades (D1, D2, D3, and D4) and a binary classification of fatty (D1-2) vs. dense (D3-4) breast using kappa statistics. The association between technical failure of VBDM and patient age, total breast volume, fibroglandular tissue volume, history of partial mastectomy, the frequency of mass > 3 cm, and breast density was analyzed. Results The agreement between breast density evaluations by radiologists and VBDM was fair (k value = 0.26) when the four density grades (D1/D2/D3/D4) were used and moderate (k value = 0.47) for the binary classification (D1-2/D3-4). Twenty-seven women (2.4{\%}) showed failure of VBDM. Small total breast volume, history of partial mastectomy, and high breast density were significantly associated with technical failure of VBDM (p = 0.001 to 0.015). Conclusion There is fair or moderate agreement in breast density evaluation between radiologists and VBDM. Technical failure of VBDM may be related to small total breast volume, a history of partial mastectomy, and high breast density.",
author = "Ko, {Su Yeon} and Kim, {Eun Kyung} and Kim, {Min Jung} and Moon, {Hee Jung}",
year = "2014",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.3348/kjr.2014.15.3.313",
language = "English",
volume = "15",
pages = "313--321",
journal = "Korean Journal of Radiology",
issn = "1229-6929",
publisher = "Korean Radiological Society",
number = "3",

}

Mammographic density estimation with automated volumetric breast density measurement. / Ko, Su Yeon; Kim, Eun Kyung; Kim, Min Jung; Moon, Hee Jung.

In: Korean journal of radiology, Vol. 15, No. 3, 01.01.2014, p. 313-321.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Mammographic density estimation with automated volumetric breast density measurement

AU - Ko, Su Yeon

AU - Kim, Eun Kyung

AU - Kim, Min Jung

AU - Moon, Hee Jung

PY - 2014/1/1

Y1 - 2014/1/1

N2 - Objective To compare automated volumetric breast density measurement (VBDM) with radiologists' evaluations based on the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS), and to identify the factors associated with technical failure of VBDM. Materials and Methods In this study, 1129 women aged 19-82 years who underwent mammography from December 2011 to January 2012 were included. Breast density evaluations by radiologists based on BI-RADS and by VBDM (Volpara Version 1.5.1) were compared. The agreement in interpreting breast density between radiologists and VBDM was determined based on four density grades (D1, D2, D3, and D4) and a binary classification of fatty (D1-2) vs. dense (D3-4) breast using kappa statistics. The association between technical failure of VBDM and patient age, total breast volume, fibroglandular tissue volume, history of partial mastectomy, the frequency of mass > 3 cm, and breast density was analyzed. Results The agreement between breast density evaluations by radiologists and VBDM was fair (k value = 0.26) when the four density grades (D1/D2/D3/D4) were used and moderate (k value = 0.47) for the binary classification (D1-2/D3-4). Twenty-seven women (2.4%) showed failure of VBDM. Small total breast volume, history of partial mastectomy, and high breast density were significantly associated with technical failure of VBDM (p = 0.001 to 0.015). Conclusion There is fair or moderate agreement in breast density evaluation between radiologists and VBDM. Technical failure of VBDM may be related to small total breast volume, a history of partial mastectomy, and high breast density.

AB - Objective To compare automated volumetric breast density measurement (VBDM) with radiologists' evaluations based on the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS), and to identify the factors associated with technical failure of VBDM. Materials and Methods In this study, 1129 women aged 19-82 years who underwent mammography from December 2011 to January 2012 were included. Breast density evaluations by radiologists based on BI-RADS and by VBDM (Volpara Version 1.5.1) were compared. The agreement in interpreting breast density between radiologists and VBDM was determined based on four density grades (D1, D2, D3, and D4) and a binary classification of fatty (D1-2) vs. dense (D3-4) breast using kappa statistics. The association between technical failure of VBDM and patient age, total breast volume, fibroglandular tissue volume, history of partial mastectomy, the frequency of mass > 3 cm, and breast density was analyzed. Results The agreement between breast density evaluations by radiologists and VBDM was fair (k value = 0.26) when the four density grades (D1/D2/D3/D4) were used and moderate (k value = 0.47) for the binary classification (D1-2/D3-4). Twenty-seven women (2.4%) showed failure of VBDM. Small total breast volume, history of partial mastectomy, and high breast density were significantly associated with technical failure of VBDM (p = 0.001 to 0.015). Conclusion There is fair or moderate agreement in breast density evaluation between radiologists and VBDM. Technical failure of VBDM may be related to small total breast volume, a history of partial mastectomy, and high breast density.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84900435226&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84900435226&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3348/kjr.2014.15.3.313

DO - 10.3348/kjr.2014.15.3.313

M3 - Article

C2 - 24843235

AN - SCOPUS:84900435226

VL - 15

SP - 313

EP - 321

JO - Korean Journal of Radiology

JF - Korean Journal of Radiology

SN - 1229-6929

IS - 3

ER -