Suppr超能文献

乳腺体积密度会影响数字化乳腺筛查钼靶摄影的效果。

Volumetric breast density affects performance of digital screening mammography.

作者信息

Wanders Johanna O P, Holland Katharina, Veldhuis Wouter B, Mann Ritse M, Pijnappel Ruud M, Peeters Petra H M, van Gils Carla H, Karssemeijer Nico

机构信息

Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

出版信息

Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017 Feb;162(1):95-103. doi: 10.1007/s10549-016-4090-7. Epub 2016 Dec 23.

Abstract

PURPOSE

To determine to what extent automatically measured volumetric mammographic density influences screening performance when using digital mammography (DM).

METHODS

We collected a consecutive series of 111,898 DM examinations (2003-2011) from one screening unit of the Dutch biennial screening program (age 50-75 years). Volumetric mammographic density was automatically assessed using Volpara. We determined screening performance measures for four density categories comparable to the American College of Radiology (ACR) breast density categories.

RESULTS

Of all the examinations, 21.6% were categorized as density category 1 ('almost entirely fatty') and 41.5, 28.9, and 8.0% as category 2-4 ('extremely dense'), respectively. We identified 667 screen-detected and 234 interval cancers. Interval cancer rates were 0.7, 1.9, 2.9, and 4.4‰ and false positive rates were 11.2, 15.1, 18.2, and 23.8‰ for categories 1-4, respectively (both p-trend < 0.001). The screening sensitivity, calculated as the proportion of screen-detected among the total of screen-detected and interval tumors, was lower in higher density categories: 85.7, 77.6, 69.5, and 61.0% for categories 1-4, respectively (p-trend < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Volumetric mammographic density, automatically measured on digital mammograms, impacts screening performance measures along the same patterns as established with ACR breast density categories. Since measuring breast density fully automatically has much higher reproducibility than visual assessment, this automatic method could help with implementing density-based supplemental screening.

摘要

目的

确定在使用数字乳腺摄影(DM)时,自动测量的乳腺体积密度对筛查性能的影响程度。

方法

我们从荷兰两年一次的筛查项目(年龄50 - 75岁)的一个筛查单位收集了连续的111,898例DM检查(2003 - 2011年)。使用Volpara自动评估乳腺体积密度。我们确定了与美国放射学会(ACR)乳腺密度类别相当的四个密度类别的筛查性能指标。

结果

在所有检查中,21.6%被归类为密度类别1(“几乎全是脂肪”),41.5%、28.9%和8.0%分别被归类为类别2 - 4(“极度致密”)。我们识别出667例筛查发现的癌症和234例间期癌。1 - 4类别的间期癌发生率分别为0.7‰、1.9‰、2.9‰和4.4‰,假阳性率分别为11.2‰、15.1‰、18.2‰和23.8‰(两者p趋势<0.001)。以筛查发现的肿瘤在筛查发现的肿瘤和间期肿瘤总数中所占比例计算的筛查敏感性,在较高密度类别中较低:1 - 4类别的筛查敏感性分别为85.7%、77.6%、69.5%和61.0%(p趋势<0.001)。

结论

在数字乳腺摄影上自动测量的乳腺体积密度,对筛查性能指标的影响模式与ACR乳腺密度类别所确定的模式相同。由于完全自动测量乳腺密度比视觉评估具有更高的可重复性,这种自动方法有助于实施基于密度的补充筛查。

相似文献

1
Volumetric breast density affects performance of digital screening mammography.
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017 Feb;162(1):95-103. doi: 10.1007/s10549-016-4090-7. Epub 2016 Dec 23.
3
The combined effect of mammographic texture and density on breast cancer risk: a cohort study.
Breast Cancer Res. 2018 May 2;20(1):36. doi: 10.1186/s13058-018-0961-7.
4
9
Digital volumetric measurement of mammographic density and the risk of overlooking cancer in Japanese women.
Breast Cancer. 2017 Sep;24(5):708-713. doi: 10.1007/s12282-017-0763-2. Epub 2017 Feb 25.

引用本文的文献

1
Assessing the generalisation of artificial intelligence across mammography manufacturers.
PLOS Digit Health. 2025 Aug 12;4(8):e0000973. doi: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000973. eCollection 2025 Aug.
2
Dense breasts and women's health: which screenings are essential?
Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2025 Aug 9;80:100743. doi: 10.1016/j.clinsp.2025.100743.
3
The evidence and concerns about screening ultrasound for breast cancer.
Cancer Biol Med. 2025 Apr 26;22(4):295-300. doi: 10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2024.0562.
5
7
Scanning K-edge subtraction (SKES) imaging with laser-compton x-ray sources.
Med Phys. 2025 Apr;52(4):2475-2492. doi: 10.1002/mp.17638. Epub 2025 Jan 28.
8
Women's perspectives of molecular breast imaging: a qualitative study.
Br J Cancer. 2025 Feb;132(3):276-282. doi: 10.1038/s41416-024-02930-1. Epub 2024 Dec 18.
9
Association between mammographic breast density and outcome in patients with unilateral invasive breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2025 Feb;210(1):157-166. doi: 10.1007/s10549-024-07548-8. Epub 2024 Nov 12.

本文引用的文献

1
Using Volumetric Breast Density to Quantify the Potential Masking Risk of Mammographic Density.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017 Jan;208(1):222-227. doi: 10.2214/AJR.16.16489. Epub 2016 Nov 8.
2
Digital mammography screening: sensitivity of the programme dependent on breast density.
Eur Radiol. 2017 Jul;27(7):2744-2751. doi: 10.1007/s00330-016-4636-4. Epub 2016 Nov 7.
3
The National Mammography Database: Preliminary Data.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016 Apr;206(4):883-90. doi: 10.2214/AJR.15.14312. Epub 2016 Feb 11.
5
7
Performance of digital screening mammography in a population-based cohort of black and white women.
Cancer Causes Control. 2015 Oct;26(10):1495-9. doi: 10.1007/s10552-015-0631-3. Epub 2015 Jul 17.
9
Identifying women with dense breasts at high risk for interval cancer: a cohort study.
Ann Intern Med. 2015 May 19;162(10):673-81. doi: 10.7326/M14-1465.
10
Comparing sensitivity and specificity of screening mammography in the United States and Denmark.
Int J Cancer. 2015 Nov 1;137(9):2198-207. doi: 10.1002/ijc.29593. Epub 2015 Jun 1.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验