- -

Wonen's features and inter/intra rater agreement on mammographic density assesment in full-field digital mammograms

RiuNet: Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad Politécnica de Valencia

Compartir/Enviar a

Citas

Estadísticas

  • Estadisticas de Uso

Wonen's features and inter/intra rater agreement on mammographic density assesment in full-field digital mammograms

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

Ficheros en el ítem

dc.contributor.author Perez-Gomez, Beatriz es_ES
dc.contributor.author Ruiz, Franciso es_ES
dc.contributor.author Martinez, Inmaculada es_ES
dc.contributor.author Casals, Maria es_ES
dc.contributor.author Miranda, Josefa es_ES
dc.contributor.author Sanchez-Contador, Carmen es_ES
dc.contributor.author Vidal, Carmen es_ES
dc.contributor.author Llobet Azpitarte, Rafael es_ES
dc.contributor.author Pollan, Marina es_ES
dc.contributor.author Salas, Dolores es_ES
dc.date.accessioned 2015-11-20T11:56:14Z
dc.date.available 2015-11-20T11:56:14Z
dc.date.issued 2012
dc.identifier.issn 0167-6806
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10251/57831
dc.description.abstract Measurement of mammographic density (MD), one of the leading risk factors for breast cancer, still relies on subjective assessment. However, the consistency of MD measurement in full-digital mammograms has yet to be evaluated. We studied inter- and intra-rater agreement with respect to estimation of breast density in full-digital mammograms, and tested whether any of the women’s characteristics might have some influence on them. After an initial training period, three experienced radiologists estimated MD using Boyd scale in a left breast craniocaudal mammogram of 1,431 women, recruited at three Spanish screening centres. A subgroup of 50 randomly selected images was read twice to estimate short-term intra-rater agreement. In addition, a reading of 1,428 of the images, performed 2 years before by one rater, was used to estimate long-term intra-rater agreement. Pair-wise weighted kappas with 95% bootstrap confidence intervals were calculated. Dichotomous variables were defined to identify mammograms in which any rater disagreed with other raters or with his/her own assessment, respectively. The association between disagreement and women’s characteristics was tested using multivariate mixed logistic models, including centre as a random-effects term, and taking into account repeated measures when required. All quadratic-weighted kappa values for inter- and intra-rater agreement were excellent (higher than 0.80). None of the studied women’s features, i.e. body mass index, brassiere size, menopause, nulliparity, lactation or current hormonal therapy, was associated with higher risk of inter- or intrarater disagreement. However, raters differed significantly more in images that were classified in the higher-density MD categories, and disagreement in intra-rater assessment was also lower in low-density mammograms. The reliability of MD assessment in full-field digital mammograms is comparable to that for original or digitised images. The reassuring lack of association between subjects’ MD-related characteristics and agreement suggests that bias from this source is unlikely. es_ES
dc.description.sponsorship This study was supported by research grants from Fundacion Gent per Gent (EDEMAC Project); grants FIS PI09/1230 & PI060386 from Spain's Health Research Fund (Fondo de Investigacion Sanitaria); the EPY 1306/06 Collaboration Agreement between Astra-Zeneca and the Carlos III Institute of Health (Instituto de Salud Carlos III); and a grant from the Spanish Federation of Breast Cancer Patients (FECMA). We thank the participants of the study DDM-Spain for their contribution to breast cancer research. We wish also to acknowledge the collaboration from other DDM-Spain members: Pilar Moreo, Pilar Moreno and Soledad Abad (Aragon); Francisca Collado and Magdalena Moya (Baleares); Isabel Gonzalez, Carmen Pedraz and Francisco Casanova (Castilla-Leon); Merce Peris (Cataluna); Carmen Santamarina, Jose Antonio Vazquez Carrete, Montserrat Corujo and Ana Belen Fernandez (Galicia); Nieves Ascunce, Maria Ederra, Milagros Garcia and Ana Barcos (Navarra); Manuela Alcaraz, Jesus Vioque (C. Valenciana); Virginia Lope, Nuria Aragones, Anna Cabanes (Madrid). en_EN
dc.language Inglés es_ES
dc.publisher Springer Verlag (Germany) es_ES
dc.relation.ispartof Breast Cancer Research and Treatment es_ES
dc.rights Reserva de todos los derechos es_ES
dc.subject Mammographic density es_ES
dc.subject Digital mammograms es_ES
dc.subject Agreement es_ES
dc.subject Kappa es_ES
dc.subject Rater es_ES
dc.subject Risk factors es_ES
dc.subject.classification LENGUAJES Y SISTEMAS INFORMATICOS es_ES
dc.title Wonen's features and inter/intra rater agreement on mammographic density assesment in full-field digital mammograms es_ES
dc.type Artículo es_ES
dc.identifier.doi 10.1007/s10549-011-1833-3
dc.relation.projectID info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/ISCIII//PI09%2F1230/
dc.relation.projectID info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/ISCIII//EPY 1306%2F06/ es_ES
dc.relation.projectID info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/ISCIII//PI060386/ES/Determinantes de la densidad mamográfica en las mujeres participantes de los programas de detección precoz del cáncer de mama en España (DDM-Spain)/
dc.rights.accessRights Cerrado es_ES
dc.contributor.affiliation Universitat Politècnica de València. Departamento de Sistemas Informáticos y Computación - Departament de Sistemes Informàtics i Computació es_ES
dc.description.bibliographicCitation Perez-Gomez, B.; Ruiz, F.; Martinez, I.; Casals, M.; Miranda, J.; Sanchez-Contador, C.; Vidal, C.... (2012). Wonen's features and inter/intra rater agreement on mammographic density assesment in full-field digital mammograms. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment. 132(1):287-295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-011-1833-3 es_ES
dc.description.accrualMethod S es_ES
dc.relation.publisherversion http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10549-011-1833-3 es_ES
dc.description.upvformatpinicio 287 es_ES
dc.description.upvformatpfin 295 es_ES
dc.type.version info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion es_ES
dc.description.volume 132 es_ES
dc.description.issue 1 es_ES
dc.relation.senia 207779 es_ES
dc.contributor.funder Fundación Gent per Gent
dc.contributor.funder Fondo de Investigaciones Sanitarias
dc.contributor.funder AstraZeneca
dc.contributor.funder Federación Española de Cáncer de Mama
dc.contributor.funder Instituto de Salud Carlos III es_ES
dc.description.references Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ, Sun L, Stone J, Fishell E, Jong RA, Hislop G, Chiarelli A, Minkin S, Yaffe MJ (2007) Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 356:227–236 es_ES
dc.description.references Stone J, Dite GS, Gunasekara A, English DR, McCredie MR, Giles GG, Cawson JN, Hegele RA, Chiarelli AM, Yaffe MJ, Boyd NF, Hopper JL (2006) The heritability of mammographically dense and nondense breast tissue. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 15:612–617 es_ES
dc.description.references Boyd NF, Dite GS, Stone J, Gunasekara A, English DR, McCredie MR, Giles GG, Tritchler D, Chiarelli A, Yaffe MJ, Hopper JL (2002) Heritability of mammographic density, a risk factor for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 347:886–894 es_ES
dc.description.references El Bastawissi AY, White E, Mandelson MT, Taplin S (2001) Variation in mammographic breast density by race. Ann Epidemiol 11:257–263 es_ES
dc.description.references El Bastawissi AY, White E, Mandelson MT, Taplin SH (2000) Reproductive and hormonal factors associated with mammographic breast density by age (United States). Cancer Causes Control 11:955–963 es_ES
dc.description.references Vacek PM, Geller BM (2004) A prospective study of breast cancer risk using routine mammographic breast density measurements. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 13:715–722 es_ES
dc.description.references Kelemen LE, Pankratz VS, Sellers TA, Brandt KR, Wang A, Janney C, Fredericksen ZS, Cerhan JR, Vachon CM (2008) Age-specific trends in mammographic density: the Minnesota Breast Cancer Family Study. Am J Epidemiol 167:1027–1036 es_ES
dc.description.references Cuzick J, Warwick J, Pinney E, Warren RM, Duffy SW (2004) Tamoxifen and breast density in women at increased risk of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 96:621–628 es_ES
dc.description.references Boyd N, Martin L, Stone J, Little L, Minkin S, Yaffe M (2002) A longitudinal study of the effects of menopause on mammographic features. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 11:1048–1053 es_ES
dc.description.references Stone J, Gunasekara A, Martin LJ, Yaffe M, Minkin S, Boyd NF (2003) The detection of change in mammographic density. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 12:625–630 es_ES
dc.description.references McCormack VA, dos SS I, De Stavola BL, Perry N, Vinnicombe S, Swerdlow AJ, Hardy R, Kuh D (2003) Life-course body size and perimenopausal mammographic parenchymal patterns in the MRC 1946 British birth cohort. Br J Cancer 89:852–859 es_ES
dc.description.references American College of Radiology (1993) Breast imaging reporting and data system (BIRADS). American College of Radiology, Reston, Va es_ES
dc.description.references Boyd NF, Byng JW, Jong RA, Fishell EK, Little LE, Miller AB, Lockwood GA, Tritchler DL, Yaffe MJ (1995) Quantitative classification of mammographic densities and breast cancer risk: results from the Canadian National Breast Screening Study. J Natl Cancer Inst 87:670–675 es_ES
dc.description.references Byng JW, Boyd NF, Fishell E, Jong RA, Yaffe MJ (1994) The quantitative analysis of mammographic densities. Phys Med Biol 39:1629–1638 es_ES
dc.description.references Ciatto S, Houssami N, Apruzzese A, Bassetti E, Brancato B, Carozzi F, Catarzi S, Lamberini MP, Marcelli G, Pellizzoni R, Pesce B, Risso G, Russo F, Scorsolini A (2005) Categorizing breast mammographic density: intra- and interobserver reproducibility of BI-RADS density categories. Breast 14:269–275 es_ES
dc.description.references Gao J, Warren R, Warren-Forward H, Forbes JF (2008) Reproducibility of visual assessment on mammographic density. Breast Cancer Res Treat 108:121–127 es_ES
dc.description.references Ooms EA, Zonderland HM, Eijkemans MJ, Kriege M, Mahdavian DB, Burger CW, Ansink AC (2007) Mammography: interobserver variability in breast density assessment. Breast 16:568–576 es_ES
dc.description.references Tagliafico A, Tagliafico G, Tosto S, Chiesa F, Martinoli C, Derchi LE, Calabrese M (2009) Mammographic density estimation: comparison among BI-RADS categories, a semi-automated software and a fully automated one. Breast 18:35–40 es_ES
dc.description.references Lee-Han H, Cooke G, Boyd NF (1995) Quantitative evaluation of mammographic densities: a comparison of methods of assessment. Eur J Cancer Prev 4:285–292 es_ES
dc.description.references Nicholson BT, LoRusso AP, Smolkin M, Bovbjerg VE, Petroni GR, Harvey JA (2006) Accuracy of assigned BI-RADS breast density category definitions. Acad Radiol 13:1143–1149 es_ES
dc.description.references Berg WA, Campassi C, Langenberg P, Sexton MJ (2000) Breast imaging reporting and data system: inter- and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 174:1769–1777 es_ES
dc.description.references Benichou J, Byrne C, Capece LA, Carroll LE, Hurt-Mullen K, Pee DY, Salane M, Schairer C, Gail MH (2003) Secular stability and reliability of measurements of the percentage of dense tissue on mammograms. Cancer Detect Prev 27:266–274 es_ES
dc.description.references Jong R, Fishell E, Little L, Lockwood G, Boyd NF (1996) Mammographic signs of potential relevance to breast cancer risk: the agreement of radiologists’ classification. Eur J Cancer Prev 5:281–286 es_ES
dc.description.references Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Frankel SD, Ominsky SH, Sickles EA, Ernster V (1998) Variability and accuracy in mammographic interpretation using the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. J Natl Cancer Inst 90:1801–1809 es_ES
dc.description.references Antonio AL, Crespi CM (2010) Predictors of interobserver agreement in breast imaging using the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. Breast Cancer Res Treat 120:539–546 es_ES
dc.description.references Garrido-Estepa M, Ruiz-Perales F, Miranda J, Ascunce N, Gonzalez-Roman I, Sanchez-Contador C, Santamarina C, Moreo P, Vidal C, Peris M, Moreno MP, Vaquez-Carrete JA, Collado-Garcia F, Casanova F, Ederra M, Salas D, Pollan M (2010) Evaluation of mammographic density patterns: reproducibility and concordance among scales. BMC Cancer 10:485 es_ES
dc.description.references Cabanes A, Pastor-Barriuso R, Garcia-Lopez M, Pedraz-Pingarron C, Sanchez-Contador C, Vazquez Carrete JA, Moreno MP, Vidal C, Salas D, Miranda-Garcia J, Peris M, Moreo P, Santamarina MC, Collado-Garcia F, Gonzalez-Roman I, Ascunce N, Pollan M (2011) Alcohol, tobacco, and mammographic density: a population-based study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 129(1):135–147 es_ES
dc.description.references Cohen J (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Measur 20:37–46 es_ES
dc.description.references Cohen J (1968) Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull 70:213–220 es_ES
dc.description.references Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174 es_ES
dc.description.references Gelman A, Hill J (2007) Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge es_ES
dc.description.references Caldwell CB, Stapleton SJ, Holdsworth DW, Jong RA, Weiser WJ, Cooke G, Yaffe MJ (1990) Characterisation of mammographic parenchymal pattern by fractal dimension. Phys Med Biol 35:235–247 es_ES
dc.description.references Jeffreys M, Warren R, Smith GD, Gunnell D (2003) Breast density: agreement of measures from film and digital image. Br J Radiol 76:561–563 es_ES
dc.description.references Fischmann A, Siegmann KC, Wersebe A, Claussen CD, Muller-Schimpfle M (2005) Comparison of full-field digital mammography and film-screen mammography: image quality and lesion detection. Br J Radiol 78:312–315 es_ES
dc.description.references Venta LA, Hendrick RE, Adler YT, DeLeon P, Mengoni PM, Scharl AM, Comstock CE, Hansen L, Kay N, Coveler A, Cutter G (2001) Rates and causes of disagreement in interpretation of full-field digital mammography and film-screen mammography in a diagnostic setting. AJR Am J Roentgenol 176:1241–1248 es_ES
dc.description.references Maclure M, Willett WC (1987) Misinterpretation and misuse of the kappa-statistic. Am J Epidemiol 126:161–169 es_ES
dc.description.references Cicchetti DV, Allison T (1971) A new procedure for assessing reliability of scoring EEG sleep recordings. Am J EEG Technol 11:101–110 es_ES
dc.description.references Fleiss JL, Cohen J (1973) Equivalence of weighted kappa and intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability. Educ Psychol Measur 33:613–619 es_ES
dc.description.references Yaffe MJ, Mainprize JG, Jong RA (2008) Technical developments in mammography. Health Phys 95:599–611 es_ES
dc.description.references Tice JA, Feldman MD (2008) Full-field digital mammography compared with screen-film mammography in the detection of breast cancer: rays of light through DMIST or more fog? Breast Cancer Res Treat 107:157–165 es_ES
dc.description.references Vinnicombe S, Pinto Pereira SM, McCormack VA, Shiel S, Perry N, dos Santos Silva I (2009) Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparison within the UK breast screening program and systematic review of published data. Radiology 251:347–358 es_ES
dc.description.references Del Turco MR, Mantellini P, Ciatto S, Bonardi R, Martinelli F, Lazzari B, Houssami N (2007) Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparative accuracy in concurrent screening cohorts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189:860–866 es_ES
dc.description.references Boyd NF (2011) Tamoxifen, mammographic density, and breast cancer prevention. J Natl Cancer Inst 103:704–705 es_ES


Este ítem aparece en la(s) siguiente(s) colección(ones)

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem