Details
Category: Volume 07 Issue 05 May 2019
Hits: 1410

Title: Comparison of Breast Density Assessment by Visual and Quantra software

Authors: Sumeena Shanmugam, Ushanandhini.G, Devimeenal.J

 DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18535/jmscr/v7i5.32

Abstract

Aim: To compare the breast density assessment visually and by Quantra software.

Materials and Methods: Digital mammographic exams of (771 right breast, 796 left breast, total 1567 examinations)   women participating in breast cancer clinic (age 30–83 years) were included from October 2018 to march 2019. Breast density was assesed visually as per Breast Imaging Reporting And Data System (BIRADS 5th edition) and compared with automated Quantra software (Hologic, selenia) and to establish the role of the software in clinical practice. kappa value was calculated to assess the degree of agreement among visual and Quantra assessment. Chi-square test is used to assess the significance in the distribution of different breast densities in different age groups.

Results: The distribution of density was significantly different by Visual assessment and by quantra except BIRADS category D. Quantra assessed  BIRADS A,B category  (24.9% in right side, 29.9% in left side ) less compared to visual assessment (33.8%in right side , 35.0% in left side)  and more of  C category ( 63.0%n right side,60.9%in left side  ) than visual (54.10% in right side,52.90 %  in left side).The different density patterns of breast in each age group are statistically significant in both visual assessment and quantra.

Conclusion: More number of visual fat densities (category A) were assessed as scattered fibroglandular densities (category B) by Quantra. Visual scattered fibroglandular densities (category B) were assessed as heterogenous fibroglandular densities (category C) by Quantra .These are the reasons for the disagreement among visual and Quantra assessment. Quantra assessed breast density is reproducible, and is preferred to visual assessment in risk assessment.

Keywords: Mammography, BI-RADS breast density category, automated volumetric breast density measurement, quantra ,screening mammography.

References

  1. Harvey JA, Bovbjerg VE. Quantitative assessment of mammographic breast density: Relationship with breast cancer risk. Radiology. 2004;230:29–41. 
  2. Wolfe JN. Risk for breast cancer development determined by mammographic parenchymal pattern. Cancer. 1976;37:2486–92.
  3. Ciatto S, Zappa M. A prospective study of the value of mammographic patterns as indicators of breast cancer risk in a screening experience. Eur J Radiol. 1993;17:122–5
  4. Carney PA1, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, Kerlikowske K, Rosenberg R, Rutter CM, Geller BM, Abraham LA, Taplin SH, Dignan M, Cutter G, Ballard-Barbash R ,Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med.2003 Feb 4;138(3):168-75 .
  5. Ciatto S1, Bernardi D, Calabrese M, Durando M, Gentilini MA, Mariscotti G, Monetti F, Moriconi E, Pesce B, Roselli A, Stevanin C, Tapparelli M, Houssami N.A first evaluation of breast radiological density assessment by QUANTRA software as compared to visual classification. 2012 Aug; 21(4): 503-6. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2012.01.005. Epub 2012 Jan 27
  6. Susie Lau, MMedPhys1,2, Kwan Hoong Ng, PhD, FInstP1,2 and Yang Faridah Abdul Aziz, MRad, MBBS1,2 -Volumetric breast density measurement: sensitivity analysis of a relative physics approach- 2016 The Authors. Published by the British Institute of Radiology
  7. A first evaluation of breast radiological density assessment by QUANTRA software as compared to visual classification-The Breast Volume 21, Issue 4, August 2012, Pages 503-506.
  8. Sickles EA, D’Orsi CJ, Bassett LW, et al. ACR BI-RADS Mammography. In: D’Orsi CJ, Sickles EA, Mendelson EB, et al., eds. ACR BI-RADS Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2013 19.
  9. Winkler NS, Raza S, Mackesy M, Birdwell RL. Breast density: clinical implications and assessment methods. RadioGraphics 2015; 35:316–324
  10. Whitehead J, Carlile T, Kopecky KJ, et al. Wolfe mammographic parenchymal patterns: a study of the masking hypothesis of Egan and Mosteller. Cancer 1985;56:1280-1286 .
  11. Karssemeijer N. Automated classification of parenchymal patterns in mammo-grams. Phys Med Biol. 1998;43:365–78. 
  12. Sivaramakrishna R, Obuchowski NA, Chilcote WA, Powell KA. Automatic segmentation of mammographic density. Acad Radiol. 2001;8:250–6.
  13. Chang Y, Wan
  14. Harvey JA, Bovbjerg VE. Quantitative assessment of mammographic breast density: Relationship with breast cancer risk. Radiology. 2004;230:29–41. 
  15. Wolfe JN. Risk for breast cancer development determined by mammographic parenchymal pattern. Cancer. 1976;37:2486–92.
  16. Ciatto S, Zappa M. A prospective study of the value of mammographic patterns as indicators of breast cancer risk in a screening experience. Eur J Radiol. 1993;17:122–5
  17. Carney PA1, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, Kerlikowske K, Rosenberg R, Rutter CM, Geller BM, Abraham LA, Taplin SH, Dignan M, Cutter G, Ballard-Barbash R ,Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med.2003 Feb 4;138(3):168-75 .
  18. Ciatto S1, Bernardi D, Calabrese M, Durando M, Gentilini MA, Mariscotti G, Monetti F, Moriconi E, Pesce B, Roselli A, Stevanin C, Tapparelli M, Houssami N.A first evaluation of breast radiological density assessment by QUANTRA software as compared to visual classification. 2012 Aug; 21(4): 503-6. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2012.01.005. Epub 2012 Jan 27
  19. Susie Lau, MMedPhys1,2, Kwan Hoong Ng, PhD, FInstP1,2 and Yang Faridah Abdul Aziz, MRad, MBBS1,2 -Volumetric breast density measurement: sensitivity analysis of a relative physics approach- 2016 The Authors. Published by the British Institute of Radiology
  20. A first evaluation of breast radiological density assessment by QUANTRA software as compared to visual classification-The Breast Volume 21, Issue 4, August 2012, Pages 503-506.
  21. Sickles EA, D’Orsi CJ, Bassett LW, et al. ACR BI-RADS Mammography. In: D’Orsi CJ, Sickles EA, Mendelson EB, et al., eds. ACR BI-RADS Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2013 19.
  22. Winkler NS, Raza S, Mackesy M, Birdwell RL. Breast density: clinical implications and assessment methods. RadioGraphics 2015; 35:316–324
  23. Whitehead J, Carlile T, Kopecky KJ, et al. Wolfe mammographic parenchymal patterns: a study of the masking hypothesis of Egan and Mosteller. Cancer 1985;56:1280-1286 .
  24. Karssemeijer N. Automated classification of parenchymal patterns in mammo-grams. Phys Med Biol. 1998;43:365–78. 
  25. Sivaramakrishna R, Obuchowski NA, Chilcote WA, Powell KA. Automatic segmentation of mammographic density. Acad Radiol. 2001;8:250–6.
  26. Chang Y, Wang X, Hardesty LA, Chang TS, Poller WR, Good WF, et al. Computerized assessment of tissue composition on digitized mammograms. Acad Radiol. 2002;9:899–905.
  27. Gloria Richard-Davis,1Brianna Whitte-more, Anthony Disher,2 Valerie Montgomery Rice,3 Rathinasamy B Lenin,4 Camille Dollins,4 Eric R Siegel,5 and Hari Eswaran: Evaluation of Quantra Hologic Volumetric Computerized Breast Density Software in Comparison With Manual Interpretation in a Diverse Population.
  28. g X, Hardesty LA, Chang TS, Poller WR, Good WF, et al. Computerized assessment of tissue composition on digitized mammograms. Acad Radiol. 2002;9:899–905.
  29. Gloria Richard-Davis,1Brianna Whitte-more, Anthony Disher,2 Valerie Montgomery Rice,3 Rathinasamy B Lenin,4 Camille Dollins,4 Eric R Siegel,5 and Hari Eswaran: Evaluation of Quantra Hologic Volumetric Computerized Breast Density Software in Comparison With Manual Interpretation in a Diverse Population.

Corresponding Author

Sumeena Shanmugam

Asst Professor, Department of Radiodiagnosis, Govt. Kilpauk Medical College, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India