Search

Abstract Background Increased mammographic breast density is a moderate risk factor for breast cancer. Different scales have been proposed for classifying mammographic density. This study sought to assess intra-rater agreement for the most widely used scales (Wolfe, Tabár, BI-RADS and Boyd) and compare them in terms of classifying mammograms as high- or low-density. Methods The study covered 3572 mammograms drawn from women included in the DDM-Spain study, carried-out in seven Spanish Autonomous Regions. Each mammogram was read by an expert radiologist and classified using the Wolfe, Tabár, BI-RADS and Boyd scales. In addition, 375 mammograms randomly selected were read a second time to estimate intra-rater agreement for each scale using the kappa statistic. Owing to the ordinal nature of the scales, weighted kappa was computed. The entire set of mammograms (3572) was used to calculate agreement among the different scales in classifying high/low-density patterns, with the kappa statistic being computed on a pair-wise basis. High density was defined as follows: percentage of dense tissue greater than 50% for the Boyd, "heterogeneously dense and extremely dense" categories for the BI-RADS, categories P2 and DY for the Wolfe, and categories IV and V for the Tabár scales. Results There was good agreement between the first and second reading, with weighted kappa values of 0.84 for Wolfe, 0.71 for Tabár, 0.90 for BI-RADS, and 0.92 for Boyd scale. Furthermore, there was substantial agreement among the different scales in classifying high- versus low-density patterns. Agreement was almost perfect between the quantitative scales, Boyd and BI-RADS, and good for those based on the observed pattern, i.e., Tabár and Wolfe (kappa 0.81). Agreement was lower when comparing a pattern-based (Wolfe or Tabár) versus a quantitative-based (BI-RADS or Boyd) scale. Moreover, the Wolfe and Tabár scales classified more mammograms in the high-risk group, 46.61 and 37.32% respectively, while this percentage was lower for the quantitative scales (21.89% for BI-RADS and 21.86% for Boyd). Conclusions Visual scales of mammographic density show a high reproducibility when appropriate training is provided. Their ability to distinguish between high and low risk render them useful for routine use by breast cancer screening programs. Quantitative-based scales are more specific than pattern-based scales in classifying populations in the high-risk group.

The task of breast density quantification is becoming increasingly relevant due to its association with breast cancer risk. In this work, a semi-automated and a fully automated tools to assess breast density from full-field digitized mammograms are presented. The first tool is based on a supervised interactive thresholding procedure for segmenting dense from fatty tissue and is used with a twofold goal: for assessing mammographic density (MD) in a more objective and accurate way than via visual-based methods and for labeling the mammograms that are later employed to train the fully automated tool. Although most automated methods rely on supervised approaches based on a global labeling of the mammogram, the proposed method relies on pixel-level labeling, allowing better tissue classification and density measurement on a continuous scale. The fully automated method presented combines a classification scheme based on local features and thresholding operations that improve the performance of the classifier. A dataset of 655 mammograms was used to test the concordance of both approaches in measuring MD. Three expert radiologists measured MD in each of the mammograms using the semi-automated tool (DM-Scan). It was then measured by the fully automated system and the correlation between both methods was computed. The relation between MD and breast cancer was then analyzed using a case-control dataset consisting of 230 mammograms. The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) was used to compute reliability among raters and between techniques. The results obtained showed an average ICC=0.922 among raters when using the semi-automated tool, whilst the average correlation between the semi-automated and automated measures was ICC=0.838. In the case-control study, the results obtained showed Odds Ratios (OR) of 1.38 and 1.50 per 10% increase in MD when using the semi-automated and fully automated approaches respectively. It can therefore be concluded that the automated and semi-automated MD assessments present a good correlation. Both the methods also found an association between MD and breast cancer risk, which warrants the proposed tools for breast cancer risk prediction and clinical decision making. A full version of the DM-Scan is freely available., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

We developed a semi-automated tool to assess mammographic density (MD), a phenotype risk marker for breast cancer (BC), in full-field digital images and evaluated its performance testing its reproducibility, comparing our MD estimates with those obtained by visual inspection and using Cumulus, verifying their association with factors that influence MD, and studying the association between MD measures and subsequent BC risk. Three radiologists assessed MD using DM-Scan, the new tool, on 655 processed images (craniocaudal view) obtained in two screening centers. Reproducibility was explored computing pair-wise concordance correlation coefficients (CCC). The agreement between DM-Scan estimates and visual assessment (semi-quantitative scale, 6 categories) was quantified computing weighted kappa statistics (quadratic weights). DM-Scan and Cumulus readings were compared using CCC. Variation of DM-Scan measures by age, body mass index (BMI) and other MD modifiers was tested in regression mixed models with mammographic device as a random-effect term. The association between DM-Scan measures and subsequent BC was estimated in a case-control study. All BC cases in screening attendants (2007-2010) at a center with full-field digital mammography were matched by age and screening year with healthy controls (127 pairs). DM-Scan was used to blindly assess MD in available mammograms (112 cases/119 controls). Unconditional logistic models were fitted, including age, menopausal status and BMI as confounders. DM-Scan estimates were very reliable (pairwise CCC: 0.921, 0.928 and 0.916). They showed a reasonable agreement with visual MD assessment (weighted kappa ranging 0.79-0.81). DM-Scan and Cumulus measures were highly concordant (CCC ranging 0.80-0.84), but ours tended to be higher (4%-5% on average). As expected, DM-Scan estimates varied with age, BMI, parity and family history of BC. Finally, DM-Scan measures were significantly associated with BC (p-trend=0.005). Taking MD<7% as reference, OR per categories of MD were: OR7%-17%=1.32 (95% CI=0.59-2.99), OR17%-28%=2.28 (95% CI=1.03-5.04) and OR>=29%=3.10 (95% CI=1.35-7.14). Our results confirm that DM-Scan is a reliable tool to assess MD in full-field digital mammograms.

Purpose: To evaluate short-term follow-up of nonpalpable probably benign lesions in a 2-year mammographic screening., Materials and Methods: Of 13,790 women aged 45-65 years who underwent first-round screening, 795 (5.8%) underwent short-term mammographic follow-up (every 6 months for 2 years) of nonpalpable probably benign lesions (eg, masses, focal asymmetric densities, and calcifications) previously assessed at an additional imaging evaluation, including ultrasonography. When no changes were found at short-term mammographic follow-up, women were assigned to the 2-year screening interval. Needle localization and surgical biopsy were performed when the lesion progressed (was enlarged or had an increased number or size of calcifications or modification of their initial characteristics). The effectiveness of this approach was evaluated with statistical analysis., Results: Of 795 lesions, 788 (99%) remained stable, and seven (1%) had changes prompting surgical biopsy. Two cancers (0.3%), one microinvasive intraductal carcinoma and one 7-mm invasive ductal carcinoma without positive nodes, were found. Four of the five benign histologic results were probably benign calcifications with progression at short-term follow-up. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and positive and negative predictive values were 100%, 99%, 99%, 29%, and 100%, respectively., Conclusion: The benign nature of most nonpalpable probably benign lesions can be typified with short-term mammographic follow-up. This approach permitted identification of a few low-stage carcinomas, but progression in the probably benign calcifications was usually unrelated to malignancy.

A retrospective search was performed of interval cancers in the Programa de Prevención de Cáncer de Mama de la Comunidad Valenciana. The cancer rate observed was 0.5 per 1,000 women studied. The mean diagnostic time from the first mammography was 11 months, and the most frequent detection means was a positive palpation. The frequency was higher in women aged less than 55 years. More "non-common" histologic types were found and a lower percentage of conservative therapies regarding cancers detected at the first round of the Program, although the stage was similar to the latter.

Two retrocecal and extraperitoneal appendix cases are showed. Atypical clinical signs, slow evolution, perforation and abscess were found. Radiological diagnosis is based by seeing the calculus and the appendix by means of barium enema. When appendix calculus is demonstrated and clinical signs are present, a surgical operation must be order urgently. Profilactic appendicectomy is recommended when no symptoms.