
BREAST DENSITY EVALUATION: A COMPARISON BETWEEN ASSESSMENT BY A RADIOLOGIST AND THE COMPUTER-ASSISTED THRESHOLD TECHNIQUE
Author(s) -
George Baitchev,
Ivan Ivanov,
Ivan Inkov,
Emilia Zlateva,
Zdravko Kamenov,
G Dimitrov
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
international journal of surgery and medicine/international journal of surgery and medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2367-7414
pISSN - 2367-699X
DOI - 10.5455/ijsm.20150903063859
Subject(s) - medicine , mammographic density , digital mammography , mammography , breast density , breast cancer , breast tissue , correlation , radiology , medical physics , cancer , mathematics , geometry
Traditionally, mammographic density (MD) of the breast has been assessed by a radiologist visually. This subjective evaluation requires significant experience to distinguish the relative proportions of the fibrous connective tissue and adipose tissue in the mammary gland correctly.\udThe aim of this study is to compare the capabilities of the different methods (visual and computer-assisted) for assessing mammographic density.\udOur sample in this study consists of 66 patients with digital mammography. The mammographic density has been evaluated using the four-grade scale of the American College of Radiology (ACR); visually, visually using an analog scale and semi-automated using UTHSCSA Image Tool 3.0, Image J and Adobe Photoshop CS6 software.\udThe average mammographic density calculated using the different methods is as follows: 34.8% (from 10% to 70%); 32.1% (from 10% to 60%); 23% (from 0% to 70.9%); 22.7% (from 2.5% to 78.1%) and 22.5% (from 1.5% to 72.4%).\udThere is a strong correlation between the results obtained visually and those calculated using a computer-assisted measurement (p< 0.0001). A strong correlation was found also between the results acquired using the different semi-automated programs (p< 0.0001).\udPrecise measurement of mammographic density is of great importance for the mammographic screening and evaluation of breast cancer risk. The semi-automated methods, used for this purpose are objective, accessible and reproducible tools and have some advantages over the subjective visual assessment