Investigation of Practical Scoring Methods for Breast Density

Ren, Bin; Smith, Andrew P.; Marshall, Julian

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-13666-5_88

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The thresholds can be set either by performing a reader study () or by taking a big population, and then assuming the population should be certain percentages. 227 It is unclear how measurement systems such as  and MicroDose make this transition, although Ren et al 227 in their paper on  discuss both approaches. In view of the various mapping methods, there is an urgent need for standardization to achieve a harmonized system.…”

Section: Mapping Volumtric Methods To Bi-rads Density Categoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For , the range is about 0%-35% with a typical median of around 6%; 107,167 for , the range is about 0%-50% with a median of around 14%. 107,227 This is far below what is typically assumed for dose calculations, but dose calculations use "glandularity", 17,19,[228][229][230] which is the volumetric density but ignores the subcutaneous fat and the breast edge, and goes by weight, not volume. The average glandularity is nearer 15%, which matches with what Yaffe et al 231 had reported.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Vision 20/20: Mammographic breast density and its clinical applications

Lau

2015

Medical Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Breast density is a strong predictor of the failure of mammography screening to detect breast cancer and is a strong predictor of the risk of developing breast cancer. The many imaging options that are now available for imaging dense breasts show great promise, but there is still the question of determining which women are "dense" and what imaging modality is suitable for individual women. To date, mammographic breast density has been classified according to the Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) categories from visual assessment, but this is known to be very subjective. Despite many research reports, the authors believe there has been a lack of physics-led and evidence-based arguments about what breast density actually is, how it should be measured, and how it should be used. In this paper, the authors attempt to start correcting this situation by reviewing the history of breast density research and the debates generated by the advocacy movement. The authors review the development of breast density estimation from pattern analysis to area-based analysis, and the current automated volumetric breast density (VBD) analysis. This is followed by a discussion on seeking the ground truth of VBD and mapping volumetric methods to BI-RADS density categories. The authors expect great improvement in VBD measurements that will satisfy the needs of radiologists, epidemiologists, surgeons, and physicists. The authors believe that they are now witnessing a paradigm shift toward personalized breast screening, which is going to see many more cancers being detected early, with the use of automated density measurement tools as an important component.

show abstract

Section: Mapping Volumtric Methods To Bi-rads Density Categoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%