Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25373436›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of radiology2014

How does semi-automated computer-derived CT measure of breast density compare with subjective assessments to assess mean glandular breast density, in patients with breast cancer?

G J Bansal, S Kotugodella

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of radiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

G J BansalThe Breast Centre, University Hospital of Llandough, Penarth, UK.
S Kotugodella

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectives(a) To compare radiologists' breast mammographic density readings with CT subjective measures. (b) To correlate computer-derived measurement of CT density with subjective assessments. (c) To evaluate density distributions in this cohort of patients with breast cancer.

methodsA retrospective review of mammograms and CT scans in 77 patients with breast cancer obtained within 1 year of each other was performed. Two radiologists independently reviewed both CT and mammograms and classified each case into four categories as defined by the breast imaging-reporting and data system of the American College of Radiology. Inter-reader agreements were obtained for both mammographic and CT density subjective evaluations by using the Cohen-weighted kappa statistic and Spearman correlation. The semi-automated computer-derived measurement of breast density was correlated with visual measurements.

resultsInter-reader agreements were lower for subjective CT density grades than those for mammographic readings 0.428 [confidence interval (CI), 0.24-0.89] vs 0.571 (CI, 0.35-0.76). There was moderately good correlation between subjective CT density grades and the mammographic density grades for both readers (0.760 for Reader 1 and 0.913 for Reader 2). The semi-automated CT density measurement correlated well with the subjective assessments, with complete agreement of the density grades in 84.9% of patients and only one level difference in the rest.

conclusionsSemi-automated CT density measurements in the evaluation of breast density correlated well with subjective mammographic density measurement. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: There is good correlation between CT and mammographic density, but further studies are needed on how to incorporate semi-automated CT breast density measurement in the risk stratification of patients.

Indexed as

AdultBreast DensityBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMammary Glands, HumanMammographyMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesROC CurveTomography, X-Ray Computed

Identifiers

PMID25373436
PMCPMC4243208

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.