Suppr超能文献

测量乳腺钼靶密度:比较全自动容积评估与欧洲放射科医生的定性分类

Measuring mammographic density: comparing a fully automated volumetric assessment versus European radiologists' qualitative classification.

作者信息

Sartor Hanna, Lång Kristina, Rosso Aldana, Borgquist Signe, Zackrisson Sophia, Timberg Pontus

机构信息

Medical Radiology, Department of Translational Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.

Department of Medical Imaging and Physiology, Skåne University Hospital, Inga Marie Nilssons gata 49, SE-205 02, Malmö, Sweden.

出版信息

Eur Radiol. 2016 Dec;26(12):4354-4360. doi: 10.1007/s00330-016-4309-3. Epub 2016 Mar 24.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) mammographic density categories are associated with considerable interobserver variability. Automated methods of measuring volumetric breast density may reduce variability and be valuable in risk and mammographic screening stratification. Our objective was to assess agreement of mammographic density by a volumetric method with the radiologists' classification.

METHODS

Eight thousand seven hundred and eighty-two examinations from the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial were classified according to BI-RADS, 4th Edition. Volumetric breast density was assessed using automated software for 8433 examinations. Agreement between volumetric breast density and BI-RADS was descriptively analyzed. Agreement between radiologists and between categorical volumetric density and BI-RADS was calculated, rendering kappa values.

RESULTS

The observed agreement between BI-RADS scores of different radiologists was 80.9 % [kappa 0.77 (0.76-0.79)]. A spread of volumetric breast density for each BI-RADS category was seen. The observed agreement between categorical volumetric density and BI-RADS scores was 57.1 % [kappa 0.55 (0.53-0.56)].

CONCLUSIONS

There was moderate agreement between volumetric density and BI-RADS scores from European radiologists indicating that radiologists evaluate mammographic density differently than software. The automated method may be a robust and valuable tool; however, differences in interpretation between radiologists and software require further investigation.

KEY POINTS

• Agreement between qualitative and software density measurements has not been frequently studied. • There was substantial agreement between different radiologists´ qualitative density assessments. • There was moderate agreement between software and radiologists' density assessments. • Differences in interpretation between software and radiologists require further investigation.

摘要

目的

乳腺影像报告和数据系统(BI-RADS)的乳腺钼靶密度分类存在较大的观察者间差异。测量乳腺体积密度的自动化方法可能会减少差异,并且在风险评估和钼靶筛查分层中具有重要价值。我们的目的是评估通过体积法测量的乳腺密度与放射科医生分类之间的一致性。

方法

根据BI-RADS第4版对来自马尔默乳腺断层合成筛查试验的8782例检查进行分类。使用自动化软件对8433例检查评估乳腺体积密度。对乳腺体积密度与BI-RADS之间的一致性进行描述性分析。计算放射科医生之间以及分类体积密度与BI-RADS之间的一致性,得出kappa值。

结果

不同放射科医生的BI-RADS评分之间观察到的一致性为80.9%[kappa 0.77(0.76 - 0.79)]。每个BI-RADS类别都有乳腺体积密度的分布。分类体积密度与BI-RADS评分之间观察到的一致性为57.1%[kappa 0.55(0.53 - 0.56)]。

结论

欧洲放射科医生的体积密度与BI-RADS评分之间存在中等程度的一致性,这表明放射科医生对乳腺钼靶密度的评估与软件不同。自动化方法可能是一种强大且有价值的工具;然而,放射科医生与软件之间解释的差异需要进一步研究。

关键点

• 定性和软件密度测量之间的一致性尚未得到充分研究。• 不同放射科医生的定性密度评估之间存在高度一致性。• 软件和放射科医生密度评估之间存在中等程度的一致性。• 软件和放射科医生之间解释的差异需要进一步研究。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8f7d/5101269/593bbce8e1d5/330_2016_4309_Fig1_HTML.jpg

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