0 579

Cited 54 times in

Automated Volumetric Breast Density Measurements in the Era of the BI-RADS Fifth Edition: A Comparison With Visual Assessment.

DC Field Value Language
dc.contributor.author권혜미-
dc.contributor.author김정아-
dc.contributor.author손은주-
dc.contributor.author육지현-
dc.date.accessioned2017-02-24T11:27:29Z-
dc.date.available2017-02-24T11:27:29Z-
dc.date.issued2016-
dc.identifier.issn0361-803X-
dc.identifier.urihttps://ir.ymlib.yonsei.ac.kr/handle/22282913/146773-
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate automated volumetric measurements in comparison with visual assessment of mammographic breast density by use of the fifth edition of BI-RADS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 1185 full-field digital mammography examinations with standard views were retrospectively analyzed. All images were visually assessed by two blinded radiologists according to breast density category in the fifth edition of the BI-RADS lexicon. Automated volumetric breast density assessment was performed using two different software programs, Quantra and Volpara. A weighted kappa value was calculated to assess the degree of agreement among the visual and volumetric assessments of the density category. The volumes of fibroglandular tissue or total breast and the percentage breast density provided by the two software programs were compared. RESULTS: Compared with a visual assessment, the agreement of density category ranged from moderate to substantial in Quantra (κ = 0.54-0.61) and fair to moderate in Volpara (κ = 0.32-0.43). The distribution of density category was statistically significantly different among visual and volumetric measurements (p < 0.0001). Quantra assigned category A and B (43.5%) more frequently than did the radiologists (25.6%) or Volpara (16.0%). Volpara assigned category D (42.1%) more frequently than did the radiologists (19.5%) or Quantra (15.4%). Between the two software programs, the means of all volumetric data were statistically significantly different (p < 0.0001), but were well correlated (γ = 0.79-0.99; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: More mammographic examinations were classified as nondense breast tissue using the Quantra software and as dense breast tissue using the Volpara software, as compared with visual assessments according to the BI-RADS fifth edition.-
dc.description.statementOfResponsibilityrestriction-
dc.format.extent1056~1062-
dc.publisherSpringfield, Ill., Thomas-
dc.relation.isPartOfAMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY-
dc.rightsCC BY-NC-ND 2.0 KR-
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/kr/-
dc.subject.MESHAdult-
dc.subject.MESHAged-
dc.subject.MESHAged, 80 and over-
dc.subject.MESHBreast/pathology*-
dc.subject.MESHBreast Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging*-
dc.subject.MESHBreast Neoplasms/pathology-
dc.subject.MESHFemale-
dc.subject.MESHHumans-
dc.subject.MESHMammography*-
dc.subject.MESHMiddle Aged-
dc.subject.MESHRadiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted*-
dc.subject.MESHRetrospective Studies-
dc.subject.MESHYoung Adult-
dc.titleAutomated Volumetric Breast Density Measurements in the Era of the BI-RADS Fifth Edition: A Comparison With Visual Assessment.-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.publisher.locationUnited States-
dc.contributor.collegeCollege of Medicine-
dc.contributor.departmentDept. of Radiology-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJi Hyun Youk-
dc.contributor.googleauthorHye Mi Gweon-
dc.contributor.googleauthorEun Ju Son-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJeong-Ah Kim-
dc.identifier.doi10.2214/AJR.15.15472-
dc.contributor.localIdA00265-
dc.contributor.localIdA00888-
dc.contributor.localIdA01988-
dc.contributor.localIdA02537-
dc.relation.journalcodeJ00116-
dc.identifier.eissn1546-3141-
dc.identifier.pmid26934689-
dc.identifier.urlhttp://www.ajronline.org/doi/abs/10.2214/AJR.15.15472-
dc.subject.keywordbreast-
dc.subject.keywordcomputer-assisted radiographic image interpretation-
dc.subject.keyworddigital radiography-
dc.subject.keywordmammography-
dc.subject.keywordsoftware-
dc.contributor.alternativeNameGweon, Hye Mi-
dc.contributor.alternativeNameKim, Jeong Ah-
dc.contributor.alternativeNameSon, Eun Ju-
dc.contributor.alternativeNameYouk, Ji Hyun-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthorGweon, Hye Mi-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthorKim, Jeong Ah-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthorSon, Eun Ju-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthorYouk, Ji Hyun-
dc.citation.volume206-
dc.citation.number5-
dc.citation.startPage1056-
dc.citation.endPage1062-
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitationAMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, Vol.206(5) : 1056-1062, 2016-
dc.date.modified2017-02-24-
dc.identifier.rimsid47516-
dc.type.rimsART-
Appears in Collections:
1. College of Medicine (의과대학) > Dept. of Radiology (영상의학교실) > 1. Journal Papers

qrcode

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.