Abstract
AbstractWe compared accuracy for breast cancer (BC) risk stratification of a new fully automated system (DenSeeMammo—DSM) for breast density (BD) assessment to a non-inferiority threshold based on radiologists’ visual assessment. Pooled analysis was performed on 14,267 2D mammograms collected from women aged 48–55 years who underwent BC screening within three studies: RETomo, Florence study and PROCAS. BD was expressed through clinical Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) density classification. Women in BI-RADS D category had a 2.6 (95% CI 1.5–4.4) and a 3.6 (95% CI 1.4–9.3) times higher risk of incident and interval cancer, respectively, than women in the two lowest BD categories. The ability of DSM to predict risk of incident cancer was non-inferior to radiologists’ visual assessment as both point estimate and lower bound of 95% CI (AUC 0.589; 95% CI 0.580–0.597) were above the predefined visual assessment threshold (AUC 0.571). AUC for interval (AUC 0.631; 95% CI 0.623–0.639) cancers was even higher. BD assessed with new fully automated method is positively associated with BC risk and is not inferior to radiologists’ visual assessment. It is an even stronger marker of interval cancer, confirming an appreciable masking effect of BD that reduces mammography sensitivity.
Funder
European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference29 articles.
1. Sprague, B. L. et al. Variation in mammographic breast density assessments among radiologists in clinical practice: A multicenter observational study. Ann. Intern. Med. 165, 457–464 (2016).
2. American College of Radiology. ACR Statement on Reporting Breast Density in Mammography Reports and Patient Summaries (2017). https://www.acr.org/Advocacy-and-Economics/ACR-Position-Statements/Reporting-Breast-Density. Accessed 7 Sept 2021.
3. Holland, K. et al. Consistency of breast density categories in serial screening mammograms: A comparison between automated and human assessment. Breast 29, 49–54 (2016).
4. Sickles, E., D’Orsi, C. J. & Bassett, L. W. ACR BI-RADS mammography, Atlas. In ACR Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System 5th edn (eds D’Orsi, C. J., Mendelson, E. B., Ikeda, D. M. et al.) 121–140 (American College of Radiology, 2003).
5. Vourtsis, A. & Berg, W. A. Breast density implications and supplemental screening. Eur. Radiol. 29, 1762–1777 (2019).
Cited by
6 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献