Mammographic density: Comparison of visual assessment with fully automatic calculation on a multivendor dataset.

OBJECTIVES: To compare breast density (BD) assessment provided by an automated BD evaluator (ABDE) with that provided by a panel of experienced breast radiologists, on a multivendor dataset. METHODS: Twenty-one radiologists assessed 613 screening/diagnostic digital mammograms from nine centers and six different vendors, using the BI-RADS a, b, c, and d density classification. The same mammograms were also evaluated by an ABDE providing the ratio between fibroglandular and total breast area on a continuous scale and, automatically, the BI-RADS score. A panel majority report (PMR) was used as reference standard. Agreement (κ) and accuracy (proportion of cases correctly classified) were calculated for binary (BI-RADS a-b versus c-d) and 4-class classification. RESULTS: While the agreement of individual radiologists with the PMR ranged from κ = 0.483 to κ = 0.885, the ABDE correctly classified 563/613 mammograms (92 %). A substantial agreement for binary classification was found for individual reader pairs (κ = 0.620, standard deviation [SD] = 0.140), individual versus PMR (κ = 0.736, SD = 0.117), and individual versus ABDE (κ = 0.674, SD = 0.095). Agreement between ABDE and PMR was almost perfect (κ = 0.831). CONCLUSIONS: The ABDE showed an almost perfect agreement with a 21-radiologist panel in binary BD classification on a multivendor dataset, earning a chance as a reproducible alternative to visual evaluation. KEY POINTS: Individual BD assessment differs from PMR with κ as low as 0.483. An ABDE correctly classified 92 % of mammograms with almost perfect agreement (κ = 0.831). An ABDE can be a valid alternative to subjective BD assessment.

A first evaluation of breast radiological density assessment by QUANTRA software as compared to visual classification.

Breast radiological density is a determinant of breast cancer risk and of mammography sensitivity and may be used to personalize screening approach. We first analyzed the reproducibility of visual density assessment by eleven experienced radiologists classifying a set of 418 digital mammograms: reproducibility was satisfactory on a four (BI-RADS D1-2-3-4: weighted kappa = 0.694-0.844) and on a two grade (D1-2 vs D3-4: kappa = 0.620-0.851), but subjects classified as with dense breast would range between 25.1 and 50.5% depending on the classifying reader. Breast density was then assessed by computer using the QUANTRA software which provided systematically lower density percentage values as compared to visual classification. In order to predict visual classification results in discriminating dense and non-dense breast subjects on a two grade scale (D3-4 vs, D1-2) the best fitting cut off value observed for QUANTRA was ≤22.0%, which correctly predicted 88.6% of D1-2, 89.8% of D3-4, and 89.0% of total cases. Computer assessed breast density is absolutely reproducible, and thus to be preferred to visual classification. Thus far few studies have addressed the issue of adjusting computer assessed density to reproduce visual classification, and more similar comparative studies are needed.