Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30746394›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2019

Volumetric breast density measurement for personalized screening: accuracy, reproducibility, consistency, and agreement with visual assessment.

Andreas Fieselmann, Daniel Förnvik, Hannie Förnvik, Kristina Lång, Hanna Sartor, Sophia Zackrisson, Steffen Kappler, Ludwig Ritschl, Thomas Mertelmeier

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

9 authors.

Andreas FieselmannSiemens Healthcare GmbH, Forchheim, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5858-6989
Daniel FörnvikLund University and Skåne University Hospital, Department of Translational Medicine, Malmö, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5083-7624
Hannie FörnvikLund University and Skåne University Hospital, Department of Translational Medicine, Malmö, Sweden.
Kristina LångLund University and Skåne University Hospital, Department of Translational Medicine, Malmö, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9250-1897
Hanna SartorLund University and Skåne University Hospital, Department of Translational Medicine, Malmö, Sweden.
Sophia ZackrissonLund University and Skåne University Hospital, Department of Translational Medicine, Malmö, Sweden.
Steffen KapplerSiemens Healthcare GmbH, Forchheim, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7223-7312
Ludwig RitschlSiemens Healthcare GmbH, Forchheim, Germany.
Thomas MertelmeierSiemens Healthcare GmbH, Forchheim, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0398-1954

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Assessment of breast density at the point of mammographic examination could lead to optimized breast cancer screening pathways. The onsite breast density information may offer guidance of when to recommend supplemental imaging for women in a screening program. A software application (Insight BD, Siemens Healthcare GmbH) for fast onsite quantification of volumetric breast density is evaluated. The accuracy of the method is assessed using breast tissue equivalent phantom experiments resulting in a mean absolute error of 3.84%. Reproducibility of measurement results is analyzed using 8427 exams in total, comparing for each exam (if available) the densities determined from left and right views, from cranio-caudal and medio-lateral oblique views, from full-field digital mammograms (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) data and from two subsequent exams of the same breast. Pearson correlation coefficients of 0.937, 0.926, 0.950, and 0.995 are obtained. Consistency of the results is demonstrated by evaluating the dependency of the breast density on women's age. Furthermore, the agreement between breast density categories computed by the software with those determined visually by 32 radiologists is shown by an overall percentage agreement of 69.5% for FFDM and by 64.6% for DBT data. These results demonstrate that the software delivers accurate, reproducible, and consistent measurements that agree well with the visual assessment of breast density by radiologists.

Indexed as

breast cancerbreast densitymammographypersonalized screening

Identifiers

PMID30746394
PMCPMC6362711

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.