Inter-observer agreement according to three methods of evaluating mammographic density and parenchymal pattern in a case control study: impact on relative risk of breast cancer

BMC Cancer

Rikke Rass Winkel¹  My von Euler-Chelpin³  Mads Nielsen⁴  Pengfei Diao²  Michael Bachmann Nielsen¹  Wei Yao Uldall¹  Ilse Vejborg¹ 

[1] Department of Radiology, University Hospital Copenhagen, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, Copenhagen Ø, DK-2100, Denmark

[2] Department of Computer Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 5, Copenhagen Ø, DK-2100, Denmark

[3] Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 5, Copenhagen K, DK-1014, Denmark

[4] Biomediq, Fruebjergvej 3, Copenhagen Ø, DK-2100, Denmark

关键词: Breast cancer risk;    Reproducibility;    Case control study;    Interactive threshold technique;    Tabár;    BI-RADS;    Mammographic parenchymal patterns;    Mammographic breast density;    Breast cancer;   

Others  :  1171663
DOI  :  10.1186/s12885-015-1256-3

 received in 2014-02-14, accepted in 2015-03-25,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Mammographic breast density and parenchymal patterns are well-established risk factors for breast cancer. We aimed to report inter-observer agreement on three different subjective ways of assessing mammographic density and parenchymal pattern, and secondarily to examine what potential impact reproducibility has on relative risk estimates of breast cancer.

Methods

This retrospective case–control study included 122 cases and 262 age- and time matched controls (765 breasts) based on a 2007 screening cohort of 14,736 women with negative screening mammograms from Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen. Digitised randomized film-based mammograms were classified independently by two readers according to two radiological visual classifications (BI-RADS and Tabár) and a computerized interactive threshold technique measuring area-based percent mammographic density (denoted PMD). Kappa statistics, Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) (equivalent to weighted kappa), Pearson’s linear correlation coefficient and limits-of-agreement analysis were used to evaluate inter-observer agreement. High/low-risk agreement was also determined by defining the following categories as high-risk: BI-RADS’s D3 and D4, Tabár’s PIV and PV and the upper two quartiles (within density range) of PMD. The relative risk of breast cancer was estimated using logistic regression to calculate odds ratios (ORs) adjusted for age, which were compared between the two readers.

Results

Substantial inter-observer agreement was seen for BI-RADS and Tabár (κ=0.68 and 0.64) and agreement was almost perfect when ICC was calculated for the ordinal BI-RADS scale (ICC=0.88) and the continuous PMD measure (ICC=0.93). The two readers judged 5% (PMD), 10% (Tabár) and 13% (BI-RADS) of the women to different high/low-risk categories, respectively. Inter-reader variability showed different impact on the relative risk of breast cancer estimated by the two readers on a multiple-category scale, however, not on a high/low-risk scale. Tabár’s pattern IV demonstrated the highest ORs of all density patterns investigated.

Conclusions

Our study shows the Tabár classification has comparable inter-observer reproducibility with well tested density methods, and confirms the association between Tabár’s PIV and breast cancer. In spite of comparable high inter-observer agreement for all three methods, impact on ORs for breast cancer seems to differ according to the density scale used. Automated computerized techniques are needed to fully overcome the impact of subjectivity.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Winkel et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]World Cancer Report 2008. [http://www.iarc.fr/en/publications/pdfs-online/wcr/2008/].
• [2]Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ, Sun L, Stone J, Fishell E, et al.: Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2007, 356:227-36.
• [3]Cummings SR, Tice JA, Bauer S, Browner WS, Cuzick J, Ziv E, et al.: Prevention of breast cancer in postmenopausal women: approaches to estimating and reducing risk. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009, 101:384-98.
• [4]McCormack VA, dos Santos Silva I: Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006, 15:1159-69.
• [5]Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Ernster V: Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. JAMA 1996, 276:33-8.
• [6]Ciatto S, Visioli C, Paci E, Zappa M: Breast density as a determinant of interval cancer at mammographic screening. Br J Cancer 2004, 90:393-6.
• [7]Kerlikowske K, Cook AJ, Buist DSM, Cummings SR, Vachon C, Vacek P, et al.: Breast cancer risk by breast density, menopause, and postmenopausal hormone therapy use. J Clin Oncol 2010, 28:3830-7.
• [8]Cuzick J, Warwick J, Pinney E, Duffy SW, Cawthorn S, Howell A, et al.: Tamoxifen-induced reduction in mammographic density and breast cancer risk reduction: a nested case–control study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011, 103:744-52.
• [9]Boyd NF, Martin LJ, Bronskill M, Yaffe MJ, Duric N, Minkin S: Breast tissue composition and susceptibility to breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010, 102:1224-37.
• [10]Woolcott CG, Koga K, Conroy SM, Byrne C, Nagata C, Ursin G, et al.: Mammographic density, parity and age at first birth, and risk of breast cancer: an analysis of four case–control studies. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012, 132:1163-71.
• [11]Gail MH, Benichou J: Validation studies on a model for breast cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994, 86:573-5.
• [12]Chen J, Pee D, Ayyagari R, Graubard B, Schairer C, Byrne C, et al.: Projecting absolute invasive breast cancer risk in white women with a model that includes mammographic density. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006, 98:1215-26.
• [13]Barlow WE, White E, Ballard-Barbash R, Vacek PM, Titus-Ernstoff L, Carney PA, et al.: Prospective breast cancer risk prediction model for women undergoing screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006, 98:1204-14.
• [14]Drukteinis JS, Mooney BP, Flowers CI, Gatenby RA: Beyond mammography: new frontiers in breast cancer screening. Am J Med 2013, 126:472-9.
• [15]Schousboe JT, Kerlikowske K, Loh A, Cummings SR: Personalizing mammography by breast density and other risk factors for breast cancer: analysis of health benefits and cost-effectiveness. Ann Intern Med 2011, 155:10-20.
• [16]Sala E, Warren R, McCann J, Duffy S, Day N, Luben R: Mammographic parenchymal patterns and mode of detection: implications for the breast screening programme. J Med Screen 1998, 5:207-12.
• [17]Pinsky RW, Helvie MA: Mammographic breast density: effect on imaging and breast cancer risk. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 2010, 8:1157-64.
• [18]Wolfe JN: Breast patterns as an index of risk for developing breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1976, 126:1130-7.
• [19]Gram IT, Funkhouser E, Tabár L: The Tabár classification of mammographic parenchymal patterns. Eur J Radiol 1997, 24:131-6.
• [20]Tabár L, Tot T, Dean PB. Breast Cancer: The Art and Science of Early Detection with Mammography. Volume 2005. Stuttgart, Germany: Thieme.
• [21]American College of Radiology: Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). 4th edition. American College of Radiology, Reston, VA; 2003.
• [22]Breast Density Notification Laws by State - Interactive Map. [http://www.diagnosticimaging.com/breast-imaging/breast-density-notification-laws-state-interactive-map].
• [23]Bernardi D, Pellegrini M, Di Michele S, Tuttobene P, Fantò C, Valentini M, et al.: Interobserver agreement in breast radiological density attribution according to BI-RADS quantitative classification. Radiol Med (Torino) 2012, 117:519-28.
• [24]Ooms EA, Zonderland HM, Eijkemans MJC, Kriege M, Mahdavian Delavary B, Burger CW, et al.: Mammography: interobserver variability in breast density assessment. Breast Edinb Scotl 2007, 16:568-76.
• [25]Ciatto S, Houssami N, Apruzzese A, Bassetti E, Brancato B, Carozzi F, et al.: Categorizing breast mammographic density: intra- and interobserver reproducibility of BI-RADS density categories. Breast Edinb Scotl 2005, 14:269-75.
• [26]Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Frankel SD, Ominsky SH, Sickles EA, et al.: Variability and accuracy in mammographic interpretation using the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998, 90:1801-9.
• [27]Gram IT, Bremnes Y, Ursin G, Maskarinec G, Bjurstam N, Lund E: Percentage density, Wolfe’s and Tabár’s mammographic patterns: agreement and association with risk factors for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 2005, 7:R854-61. BioMed Central Full Text
• [28]Garrido-Estepa M, Ruiz-Perales F, Miranda J, Ascunce N, González-Román I, Sánchez-Contador C, et al.: Evaluation of mammographic density patterns: reproducibility and concordance among scales. BMC Cancer 2010, 10:485.
• [29]Byng JW, Yaffe MJ, Jong RA, Shumak RS, Lockwood GA, Tritchler DL, et al.: Analysis of mammographic density and breast cancer risk from digitized mammograms. Radiogr Rev Publ Radiol Soc N Am Inc 1998, 18:1587-98.
• [30]Highnam R, Brady SM, Yaffe MJ, Karssemeijer N, Harvey J: Robust Breast Composition Measurement - VolparaTM. In Digital Mammography. Edited by Martí J, Oliver A, Freixenet J, Martí R. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg; 2010:342-9. [Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6136]
• [31]Ciatto S, Bernardi D, Calabrese M, Durando M, Gentilini MA, Mariscotti G, et al.: A first evaluation of breast radiological density assessment by QUANTRA software as compared to visual classification. Breast Edinb Scotl 2012, 21:503-6.
• [32]Tagliafico A, Tagliafico G, Tosto S, Chiesa F, Martinoli C, Derchi LE, et al.: Mammographic density estimation: comparison among BI-RADS categories, a semi-automated software and a fully automated one. Breast Edinb Scotl 2009, 18:35-40.
• [33]Eng A, Gallant Z, Shepherd J, McCormack V, Li J, Dowsett M, et al.: Digital mammographic density and breast cancer risk: a case¿control study of six alternative density assessment methods. Breast Cancer Res 2014, 16:439. BioMed Central Full Text
• [34]Tagliafico A, Tagliafico G, Houssami N: Differences in breast density assessment using mammography, tomosynthesis and MRI and their implications for practice. Br J Radiol 2013, 86:20130528.
• [35]Tagliafico A, Tagliafico G, Astengo D, Airaldi S, Calabrese M, Houssami N: Comparative estimation of percentage breast tissue density for digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, and magnetic resonance imaging. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2013, 138(1):311-7.
• [36]Raundahl J, Loog M, Pettersen P, Tanko LB, Nielsen M: Automated effect-specific mammographic pattern measures. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2008, 27:1054-60.
• [37]Duffy SW, Nagtegaal ID, Astley SM, Gillan MG, McGee MA, Boggis CR, et al.: Visually assessed breast density, breast cancer risk and the importance of the craniocaudal view. Breast Cancer Res 2008, 10:R64. BioMed Central Full Text
• [38]National mammography database data elements . [https://nrdr.acr.org/Portal/HELP/NMD/nmd_data_elements.pdf].
• [39]Jakes RW, Duffy SW, Ng FC, Gao F, Ng EH: Mammographic parenchymal patterns and risk of breast cancer at and after a prevalence screen in Singaporean women. Int J Epidemiol 2000, 29:11-9.
• [40]Fleiss JL, Cohen J: The Equivalence of Weighted Kappa and the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient as Measures of Reliability. Educ Psychol Meas 1973, 33:613-9.
• [41]Landis JR, Koch GG: The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977, 33:159-74.
• [42]Berg WA, Campassi C, Langenberg P, Sexton MJ: Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: inter- and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000, 174:1769-77.
• [43]Zulfiqar M, Rohazly I, Rahmah M: Do the majority of Malaysian women have dense breasts on mammogram? Biomed Imaging Interv J 2011., 7(2) Article ID e14
• [44]Boyd NF, Martin LJ, Yaffe M, Minkin S: Mammographic density. Breast Cancer Res 2009, 11 Suppl 3:S4. BioMed Central Full Text
• [45]Stone J, Ding J, Warren RM, Duffy SW, Hopper JL: Using mammographic density to predict breast cancer risk: dense area or percentage dense area. Breast Cancer Res 2010, 12:R97. BioMed Central Full Text
• [46]Grove JS, Goodman MJ, Gilbert FI Jr, Russell H: Wolfe’s mammographic classification and breast cancer risk: the effect of misclassification on apparent risk ratios. Br J Radiol 1985, 58:15-9.
• [47]Stone J, Ding J, Warren RML, Duffy SW: Predicting breast cancer risk using mammographic density measurements from both mammogram sides and views. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2010, 124:551-4.
• [48]Vachon CM, Brandt KR, Ghosh K, Scott CG, Maloney SD, Carston MJ, et al.: Mammographic breast density as a general marker of breast cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2007, 16:43-9.
• [49]Abdolell M, Tsuruda K, Schaller G, Caines J. Statistical evaluation of a fully automated mammographic breast density algorithm. Comput Math Methods Med. 2013:651091. Epub 2013 May 8.
• [50]Boyd NF, Martin LJ, Sun L, Guo H, Chiarelli A, Hislop G, et al.: Body size, mammographic density, and breast cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006, 15:2086-92.
• [51]Tagliafico A, Tagliafico G, Astengo D, Cavagnetto F, Rosasco R, Rescinito G, et al.: Mammographic density estimation: one-to-one comparison of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis using fully automated software. Eur Radiol 2012, 22:1265-70.