OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to investigate the subjective method of estimating linear breast dimensions in comparison to the objective method.

METHODS

The reproducibility and accuracy of the subjective method of estimating linear breast dimensions during a simplified breast shape analysis were examined. Four linear breast dimensions including the distance from the sternal notch to the nipple, distance from the nipple to the inframammary fold, distance from the nipple to the midline and under-breast width were evaluated based on subjective estimates. Images from 100 women with natural breasts and without any history of breast surgery were reviewed by two examiners three times each. The cases were obtained from a large database of breast images captured using the Vectra Camera System (Canfield Scientific Inc., USA). The subjective data were then compared with the objective linear data from the Vectra Camera System in the automated analysis. Statistical evaluation was conducted between the three repeated estimates of each examiner, between the two examiners and between the objective and subjective data.

RESULTS

The intra-individual variations of the three subjective estimates were significantly greater in one examiner than in the other. This trend was consistent across all eight parameters in the majority of the comparisons of the standard deviations and variation coefficients, and the differences were significant in 14 out of 16 comparisons (p<0.05). Conversely, in the comparison between the subjective and objective data, the estimates were closer to the measurements in one examiner than the other. In contrast to the reproducibility observed, the assessment of the accuracy revealed that the examiner who previously presented with less reproducibility of the estimated data overall showed better accuracy in comparison to the objective data. The overall differences were inconsistent, with some being positive and others being negative. Regarding the distances from the sternal notch to the nipple and breast width, both examiners underestimated the values. However, the deviations were at different levels, particularly when considering the objective data from the Vectra Camera System as the gold standard data for comparison. Regarding the distance from the nipple to the inframammary fold, one examiner underestimated the distance, while the other overestimated it. An opposite trend was noted for the distance from the nipple to the midline. There were no differences in the estimates between the right and left sides of the breasts. The correlations between the measured and estimated distances were positive: as the objective distances increased, the subjective distances also increased. In all cases, the correlations were significant. However, the correlation for the breast width was notably weaker than that for the other distances.

CONCLUSIONS

The error assessment of the subjective method reveals that it varies significantly and unsystematically between examiners. This is true when assessing the reproducibility as well as the accuracy of the method in comparison to the objective data obtained with an automated system.