0 513

Cited 22 times in

Comparison of Visual Assessment of Breast Density in BI-RADS 4th and 5th Editions With Automated Volumetric Measurement

DC Field Value Language
dc.contributor.author권혜미-
dc.contributor.author김소중-
dc.contributor.author김정아-
dc.contributor.author손은주-
dc.contributor.author육지현-
dc.date.accessioned2018-07-20T07:55:27Z-
dc.date.available2018-07-20T07:55:27Z-
dc.date.issued2017-
dc.identifier.issn0361-803X-
dc.identifier.urihttps://ir.ymlib.yonsei.ac.kr/handle/22282913/160671-
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare visual assessments of mammographic breast density by radiologists using BI-RADS 4th and 5th editions in correlation with automated volumetric breast density measurements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 337 consecutive full-field digital mammographic examinations with standard views were retrospectively assessed by two radiologists for mammographic breast density according to BI-RADS 4th and 5th editions. Fully automated measurement of the volume of fibroglandular tissue and total breast and percentage breast density was performed with a commercially available software program. Interobserver and intraobserver agreement was assessed with kappa statistics. The distributions of breast density categories for both editions of BI-RADS were compared and correlated with volumetric data. RESULTS: Interobserver agreement on breast density category was moderate to substantial (κ = 0.58-0.63) with use of BI-RADS 4th edition and substantial (κ = 0.63-0.66) with use of the 5th edition but without significant difference between the two editions. For intraobserver agreement between the two editions, the distributions of density category were significantly different (p < 0.0001), the proportions of dense breast increased, and the proportion of fatty breast decreased with use of the 5th edition compared with the 4th edition (p < 0.0001). All volumetric breast density data, including percentage breast density, were significantly different among density categories (p < 0.0001) and had significant correlation with visual assessment for both editions of BI-RADS (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Assessment using BI-RADS 5th edition revealed a higher proportion of dense breast than assessment using BI-RADS 4th edition. Nevertheless, automated volumetric density assessment had good correlation with visual assessment for both editions of BI-RADS.-
dc.description.statementOfResponsibilityrestriction-
dc.languageEnglish-
dc.publisherSpringfield, Ill., Thomas-
dc.relation.isPartOfAMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY-
dc.rightsCC BY-NC-ND 2.0 KR-
dc.rightshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/kr/-
dc.subject.MESHAdult-
dc.subject.MESHAged-
dc.subject.MESHBreast Density*-
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.MESHReproducibility of Results-
dc.subject.MESHRetrospective Studies-
dc.subject.MESHSoftware-
dc.titleComparison of Visual Assessment of Breast Density in BI-RADS 4th and 5th Editions With Automated Volumetric Measurement-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.contributor.collegeCollege of Medicine-
dc.contributor.departmentDept. of Radiology-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJi Hyun Youk-
dc.contributor.googleauthorSo Jung Kim-
dc.contributor.googleauthorEun Ju Son-
dc.contributor.googleauthorHye Mi Gweon-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJeong-Ah Kim-
dc.identifier.doi10.2214/AJR.16.17525-
dc.contributor.localIdA00265-
dc.contributor.localIdA05310-
dc.contributor.localIdA00888-
dc.contributor.localIdA01988-
dc.contributor.localIdA02537-
dc.relation.journalcodeJ00116-
dc.identifier.eissn1546-3141-
dc.identifier.pmid28657850-
dc.identifier.urlhttps://www.ajronline.org/doi/abs/10.2214/AJR.16.17525-
dc.subject.keywordBI-RADS-
dc.subject.keywordbreast density-
dc.subject.keywordbreast imaging-
dc.subject.keywordcomputer-assisted interpretation-
dc.subject.keywordmammography-
dc.contributor.alternativeNameGweon, Hye Mi-
dc.contributor.alternativeNameKim, So Jung-
dc.contributor.alternativeNameKim, Jeong Ah-
dc.contributor.alternativeNameSon, Eun Ju-
dc.contributor.alternativeNameYouk, Ji Hyun-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthorGweon, Hye Mi-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthorKim, So Jung-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthorKim, Jeong Ah-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthorSon, Eun Ju-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthorYouk, Ji Hyun-
dc.citation.volume209-
dc.citation.number3-
dc.citation.startPage703-
dc.citation.endPage708-
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitationAMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, Vol.209(3) : 703-708, 2017-
dc.identifier.rimsid41843-
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.