Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mammographic density measurements are not affected by mammography system.
Damases, Christine N; Brennan, Patrick C; McEntee, Mark F.
Afiliación
  • Damases CN; University of Sydney , Faculty of Health Sciences, Discipline of Medical Radiation Sciences and Brain and Mind Research Institute, M205, Cumberland Campus, East Street, Lidcombe, New South Wales 2141, Sydney ; University of Namibia , Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Allied Sciences, M-Block, Room M-105, Mandume Ndemufayo Avenue, Private bag 13310, Windhoek 9000, Namibia.
  • Brennan PC; University of Sydney , Faculty of Health Sciences, Discipline of Medical Radiation Sciences and Brain and Mind Research Institute, M205, Cumberland Campus, East Street, Lidcombe, New South Wales 2141, Sydney.
  • McEntee MF; University of Sydney , Faculty of Health Sciences, Discipline of Medical Radiation Sciences and Brain and Mind Research Institute, M205, Cumberland Campus, East Street, Lidcombe, New South Wales 2141, Sydney.
J Med Imaging (Bellingham) ; 2(1): 015501, 2015 Jan.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26158085
Mammographic density (MD) is a significant risk factor for breast cancer and has been shown to reduce the sensitivity of mammography screening. Knowledge of a woman's density can be used to predict her risk of developing breast cancer and personalize her imaging pathway. However, measurement of breast density has proven to be troublesome with wide variations in density recorded using radiologists' visual Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS). Several automated methods for assessing breast density have been proposed, each with their own source of measurement error. The use of differing mammographic imaging systems further complicates MD measurement, especially for the same women imaged over time. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether having a mammogram on differing manufacturer's equipment affects a woman's MD measurement. Raw mammographic images were acquired on two mammography imaging systems (General Electric and Hologic) one year apart and processed using VolparaDensity™ to obtain the Volpara Density Grade (VDG) and average volumetric breast density percentage (AvBD%). Visual BIRADS scores were also obtained from 20 expert readers. BIRADS scores for both systems showed strong positive correlation ([Formula: see text]; [Formula: see text]), while the VDG ([Formula: see text]; [Formula: see text]) and AvBD% ([Formula: see text]; [Formula: see text]) showed stronger positive correlations. Substantial agreement was shown between the systems for BIRADS ([Formula: see text]; [Formula: see text]), however, the systems demonstrated an almost perfect agreement for VDG ([Formula: see text]; [Formula: see text]).
Palabras clave
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Tipo de estudio: Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Idioma: En Revista: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Año: 2015 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Namibia Pais de publicación: Estados Unidos
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Tipo de estudio: Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Idioma: En Revista: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Año: 2015 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Namibia Pais de publicación: Estados Unidos