Lee Han Na, Sohn Yu-Mee, Han Kyung Hwa
Department of Radiology, Kyung Hee University Hospital, College of Medicine, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Department of Radiology, Kyung Hee University Hospital, College of Medicine, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
Acta Radiol. 2015 Sep;56(9):1061-8. doi: 10.1177/0284185114554674. Epub 2014 Oct 22.
Volumetric breast density analysis is useful for quantitative mammographic assessment. However, there are few studies about clinical-radiologic factors contributing to discrepancies in the visual assessment by radiologists.
To compare automated volumetric breast density measurement with BI-RADS breast density category by radiologists' visual assessments and to evaluate the clinical-radiologic factors affecting disagreement between two estimations.
From February 2011 to September 2012, 860 patients (mean age, 54.7 ± 10.2 years) who had undergone digital mammography including fully automated volumetric breast density analysis, were enrolled. The agreement in breast density assessments between two radiologists, and between an experienced radiologist and the automated software were evaluated using a weighted kappa (k) value. Clinical-radiologic factors contributing to disagreement between the results obtained by a radiologist and the automated software were evaluated using univariate and multivariate analysis.
Breast density assessments obtained by two different radiologists were in good agreement (weighted k statistics 0.835%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8098-0.8608); breast density assessments obtained by an experienced radiologist versus automated software were in moderate agreement (weighted k statistics 0.799%; 95% CI, 0.7708-0.8263). Univariate analysis identified a difference in bilateral breast density and patient age as two factors that significantly contributed to disagreement between the two approaches (P = 0.0002, P = 0.019). Multivariate analysis only identified a difference in bilateral breast density as a contributing factor.
The automated volumetric breast density measurement showed good agreement with radiologists' assessment. The difference in bilateral breast density affected the disagreement between results from visual assessment and automated software.
乳腺体积密度分析有助于乳腺钼靶的定量评估。然而,关于导致放射科医生视觉评估出现差异的临床放射学因素的研究较少。
通过放射科医生的视觉评估,比较自动乳腺体积密度测量与BI-RADS乳腺密度分类,并评估影响两种评估方法之间差异的临床放射学因素。
纳入2011年2月至2012年9月期间接受数字乳腺钼靶检查(包括全自动乳腺体积密度分析)的860例患者(平均年龄54.7±10.2岁)。使用加权kappa(κ)值评估两位放射科医生之间以及一位经验丰富的放射科医生与自动软件之间乳腺密度评估的一致性。使用单因素和多因素分析评估导致放射科医生与自动软件所得结果存在差异的临床放射学因素。
两位不同放射科医生的乳腺密度评估结果一致性良好(加权κ统计量0.835%;95%置信区间[CI],0.8098 - 0.8608);经验丰富的放射科医生与自动软件的乳腺密度评估结果一致性中等(加权κ统计量0.799%;95%CI,0.7708 - 0.8263)。单因素分析确定双侧乳腺密度差异和患者年龄是导致两种方法存在差异的两个显著因素(P = 0.0002,P = 0.019)。多因素分析仅确定双侧乳腺密度差异是一个影响因素。
自动乳腺体积密度测量与放射科医生的评估结果一致性良好。双侧乳腺密度差异影响了视觉评估结果与自动软件结果之间的差异。