Share Email Print
cover

Proceedings Paper

Mammographic density measurement: a comparison of automated volumetric density measurement to BIRADS
Format Member Price Non-Member Price
PDF $14.40 $18.00

Paper Abstract

The aim of this study is to compare mammographic breast density assessment with automated volumetric software with Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS) categorization by radiologists on two imaging systems. A data set of 120 mammograms was classified by twenty American Board of Radiology (ABR) Examiners. The mammograms were of 20 women (mean age, 60 years; range, 42–89 years). These women were image twice one year apart either on GE system or Hologic system. These images also had their volumetric density classified by using Volpara Density Grade (VDG). The radiologists were asked to estimate the mammographic density according to BIRADS categories (1-4). There was a moderate agreement between VDG classification and radiologist BIRADS density shown with Cohen’s Kappa (κ=0.45; p<0.001). Radiologists estimated percentage density to be lower by an average of 0.37 for the Hologic system, the radiologist’s BIRADS having a mean of 2.05 and the mean VDG higher at 2.42(t= -8.88; p<0.001). VDG and radiologist’s BIRADS showed a positive strong correlation (r=0.87; p<0.001). Radiologist BIRADS and VDG AvBD% also showed a strong positive correlation (r=0.86; p<0.001). There was a large spread of radiologist’s BIRADS categories for each of the VDG AvBD% classifications. Using Volpara, the Hologic system showed a lower mean AvBD% (9.5 vs. 9.6). However using BIRADS the Hologic systems showed a lower mean (2.05 vs. 2.22). Automated systems demonstrated higher internal validity. The results demonstrated a moderate agreement and a strong correlation between VDG classification and radiologist BIRADS density assessment.

Publisher’s Note: This paper, originally published on 3/11/14, was replaced with a corrected/revised version on 8/1/14. If you downloaded the original PDF but are unable to access the revision, please contact SPIE Digital Library Customer Service for assistance.

Paper Details

Date Published: 11 March 2014
PDF: 8 pages
Proc. SPIE 9037, Medical Imaging 2014: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment, 90370T (11 March 2014); doi: 10.1117/12.2042966
Show Author Affiliations
Mark F. McEntee, The Univ. of Sydney (Australia)
Christine N. Damases, The Univ. of Sydney (Australia)


Published in SPIE Proceedings Vol. 9037:
Medical Imaging 2014: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment
Claudia R. Mello-Thoms; Matthew A. Kupinski, Editor(s)

© SPIE. Terms of Use
Back to Top