publication . Article . 2016

Compressed breast thickness error and volumetric density

Waade, G; Highnam, R; Hauge, I; McEntee, M; Hofvind, S; Denton, E; Kelly, J; Sarwar, J; Hogg, P;
Open Access English
  • Published: 01 Jun 2016
  • Publisher: American Association of Physicists in Medicine
  • Country: Switzerland
Abstract
Purpose: Mammographic density has been demonstrated to predict breast cancer risk. It has been proposed that it could be used for stratifying screening pathways and recommending additional imaging. Volumetric density tools use the recorded compressed breast thickness (CBT) of the breast measured at the x-ray unit in their calculation, however the accuracy of the recorded thickness can vary. The aim of this study was to investigate whether inaccuracies in recorded CBT impact upon volumetric density classification and to examine whether the current quality control (QC) standard is sufficient for assessing mammographic density. \ud Methods: Raw data from 52 digital...
Subjects
free text keywords: Mammography, medicine.diagnostic_test, medicine, Nuclear medicine, business.industry, business, Volumetric density, MAMMOGRAPHIC DENSITY, Digital mammography, Physics, Observational error, Breast cancer, medicine.disease, Contextual image classification, Software

42Braithwaite, D., Zhu, W., Hubbard, R. A., O'Meara, E. S., Miglioretti, D. L., Geller, B., ... & Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. (2013). Screening outcomes in older US women undergoing multiple mammograms in community practice: does interval, age, or comorbidity score affect tumor characteristics or false positive rates?. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 105(5), 334-341.

43Hartman, K., Highnam, R., Warren, R., & Jackson, V. (2008). Volumetric assessment of breast tissue composition from FFDM images. Digital Mammography, 33-39.

44Wang, J., Azziz, A., Fan, B., Malkov, S., Klifa, C., Newitt, D., Yitta, S., Hylton, N., Kerlikowske, K.

& Shepherd, J. A. (2013). Agreement of mammographic measures of volumetric breast density to MRI., PloS one, 8(12), e81653.

45Morrish, O. W., Tucker, L., Black, R., Willsher, P., Duffy, S. W., & Gilbert, F. J. (2015).

Mammographic Breast Density: Comparison of Methods for Quantitative Evaluation. Radiology, 275(2), 356-365.

46Schmachtenberg, C., Hammann-Kloss, S., Bick, U., & Engelken, F. (2015). Intraindividual Comparison of Two Methods of Volumetric Breast Composition Assessment. Academic radiology, 22(4), 447-452.

47van der Waal, D., den Heeten, G. J., Pijnappel, R. M., Schuur, K. H., Timmers, J. M., Verbeek, A.

L., & Broeders, M. J. (2015). Comparing Visually Assessed BI-RADS Breast Density and Automated Volumetric Breast Density Software: A Cross-Sectional Study in a Breast Cancer Screening Setting.

PloS one, 10(9), e0136667.

48Broeders, M. J., ten Voorde, M., Veldkamp, W. J., van Engen, R. E., van Landsveld-Verhoeven, C., NL't Jong-Gunneman, M., ... & den Heeten, G. J. (2015). Comparison of a flexible versus a rigid breast compression paddle: pain experience, projected breast area, radiation dose and technical image quality. European radiology, 25(3), 821-829. [OpenAIRE]

Abstract
Purpose: Mammographic density has been demonstrated to predict breast cancer risk. It has been proposed that it could be used for stratifying screening pathways and recommending additional imaging. Volumetric density tools use the recorded compressed breast thickness (CBT) of the breast measured at the x-ray unit in their calculation, however the accuracy of the recorded thickness can vary. The aim of this study was to investigate whether inaccuracies in recorded CBT impact upon volumetric density classification and to examine whether the current quality control (QC) standard is sufficient for assessing mammographic density. \ud Methods: Raw data from 52 digital...
Subjects
free text keywords: Mammography, medicine.diagnostic_test, medicine, Nuclear medicine, business.industry, business, Volumetric density, MAMMOGRAPHIC DENSITY, Digital mammography, Physics, Observational error, Breast cancer, medicine.disease, Contextual image classification, Software

42Braithwaite, D., Zhu, W., Hubbard, R. A., O'Meara, E. S., Miglioretti, D. L., Geller, B., ... & Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. (2013). Screening outcomes in older US women undergoing multiple mammograms in community practice: does interval, age, or comorbidity score affect tumor characteristics or false positive rates?. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 105(5), 334-341.

43Hartman, K., Highnam, R., Warren, R., & Jackson, V. (2008). Volumetric assessment of breast tissue composition from FFDM images. Digital Mammography, 33-39.

44Wang, J., Azziz, A., Fan, B., Malkov, S., Klifa, C., Newitt, D., Yitta, S., Hylton, N., Kerlikowske, K.

& Shepherd, J. A. (2013). Agreement of mammographic measures of volumetric breast density to MRI., PloS one, 8(12), e81653.

45Morrish, O. W., Tucker, L., Black, R., Willsher, P., Duffy, S. W., & Gilbert, F. J. (2015).

Mammographic Breast Density: Comparison of Methods for Quantitative Evaluation. Radiology, 275(2), 356-365.

46Schmachtenberg, C., Hammann-Kloss, S., Bick, U., & Engelken, F. (2015). Intraindividual Comparison of Two Methods of Volumetric Breast Composition Assessment. Academic radiology, 22(4), 447-452.

47van der Waal, D., den Heeten, G. J., Pijnappel, R. M., Schuur, K. H., Timmers, J. M., Verbeek, A.

L., & Broeders, M. J. (2015). Comparing Visually Assessed BI-RADS Breast Density and Automated Volumetric Breast Density Software: A Cross-Sectional Study in a Breast Cancer Screening Setting.

PloS one, 10(9), e0136667.

48Broeders, M. J., ten Voorde, M., Veldkamp, W. J., van Engen, R. E., van Landsveld-Verhoeven, C., NL't Jong-Gunneman, M., ... & den Heeten, G. J. (2015). Comparison of a flexible versus a rigid breast compression paddle: pain experience, projected breast area, radiation dose and technical image quality. European radiology, 25(3), 821-829. [OpenAIRE]

Powered by OpenAIRE Research Graph
Any information missing or wrong?Report an Issue