Suppr超能文献

基于面积测量法和体积测量法的自动乳腺密度测量的BI-RADS密度分类

BI-RADS Density Classification From Areometric and Volumetric Automatic Breast Density Measurements.

作者信息

Østerås Bjørn Helge, Martinsen Anne Catrine T, Brandal Siri Helene B, Chaudhry Khalida Nasreen, Eben Ellen, Haakenaasen Unni, Falk Ragnhild Sørum, Skaane Per

机构信息

The Intervention Centre, Rikshospitalet, Postbox 4950, Nydalen, 0424 Oslo, Norway; Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Postbox 1171, Blindern, 1318, Oslo, Norway.

The Intervention Centre, Rikshospitalet, Postbox 4950, Nydalen, 0424 Oslo, Norway; Institute of Physics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.

出版信息

Acad Radiol. 2016 Apr;23(4):468-78. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2015.12.016. Epub 2016 Feb 1.

Abstract

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of our study was to classify breast density using areometric and volumetric automatic measurements to best match Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) density scores, and determine which technique best agrees with BI-RADS. Second, this study aimed to provide a set of threshold values for areometric and volumetric density to estimate BI-RADS categories.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We randomly selected 537 full-field digital mammography examinations from a population-based screening program. Five radiologists assessed breast density using BI-RADS with all views available. A commercial program calculated areometric and volumetric breast density automatically. We compared automatically calculated density to all BI-RADS density thresholds using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, and used Youden's index to estimate thresholds in automatic densities, with matching sensitivity and specificity. The 95% confidence intervals were estimated by bootstrapping.

RESULTS

Areometric density correlated well with volumetric density (r(2) = 0.76, excluding outliers, n = 2). For the BI-RADS threshold between II and III, areometric and volumetric assessment showed about equal area under the curve (0.94 vs. 0.93). For the threshold between I and II, areometric assessment was better than volumetric assessment (0.91 vs. 0.86). For the threshold between III and IV, volumetric assessment was better than areometric assessment (0.97 vs. 0.92).

CONCLUSIONS

Volumetric assessment is equal to or better than areometric assessment for the most clinically relevant thresholds (ie, between scattered fibroglandular and heterogeneously dense, and between heterogeneously dense and extremely dense breasts). Thresholds found in this study can be applied in daily practice to automatic measurements of density to estimate BI-RADS classification.

摘要

原理与目的

我们研究的目的是使用等距和容积自动测量方法对乳腺密度进行分类,以最佳匹配乳腺影像报告和数据系统(BI-RADS)密度评分,并确定哪种技术与BI-RADS的一致性最佳。其次,本研究旨在提供一组等距和容积密度的阈值,以估计BI-RADS类别。

材料与方法

我们从一项基于人群的筛查项目中随机选取了537例全视野数字化乳腺摄影检查。五名放射科医生使用BI-RADS对所有可用视图的乳腺密度进行评估。一个商业程序自动计算乳腺的等距和容积密度。我们使用受试者操作特征曲线下面积将自动计算的密度与所有BI-RADS密度阈值进行比较,并使用约登指数估计自动密度中的阈值,使其具有匹配的敏感性和特异性。通过自抽样法估计95%置信区间。

结果

等距密度与容积密度相关性良好(r² = 0.76,排除异常值,n = 2)。对于BI-RADS II级和III级之间的阈值,等距和容积评估的曲线下面积大致相等(0.94对0.93)。对于I级和II级之间的阈值,等距评估优于容积评估(0.91对0.86)。对于III级和IV级之间的阈值,容积评估优于等距评估(0.97对0.92)。

结论

对于最具临床相关性的阈值(即散在纤维腺体密度和不均匀致密密度之间,以及不均匀致密密度和极度致密乳房之间),容积评估等于或优于等距评估。本研究中发现的阈值可应用于日常实践中的密度自动测量,以估计BI-RADS分类。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验