Breast Density Status Changes: Frequency, Sequence, and Practice Implications.

IF 2 Q3 ONCOLOGY
Caitlin M Maloney, Shirlene Paul, Jordan L Lieberenz, Lisa R Stempel, Mia A Levy, Rosalinda Alvarado
{"title":"Breast Density Status Changes: Frequency, Sequence, and Practice Implications.","authors":"Caitlin M Maloney, Shirlene Paul, Jordan L Lieberenz, Lisa R Stempel, Mia A Levy, Rosalinda Alvarado","doi":"10.1093/jbi/wbae048","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Changes in a patient's reported breast density status (dense vs nondense) trigger modifications in their cancer risk profile and supplemental screening recommendations. This study tracked the frequency and longitudinal sequence of breast density status changes among patients who received serial mammograms.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This IRB-approved, HIPAA-compliant retrospective cohort study tracked breast density changes among patients who received at least 2 mammograms over an 8-year study period. BI-RADS density assessment categories A through D, visually determined at the time of screening, were abstracted from electronic medical records and dichotomized into either nondense (categories A or B) or dense (categories C or D) status. A sequence analysis of longitudinal changes in density status was performed using Microsoft SQL.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 58 895 patients underwent 231 997 screening mammograms. Most patients maintained the same BI-RADS density category A through D (87.35% [51 444/58 895]) and density status (93.35% [54 978/58 859]) throughout the study period. Among patients whose density status changed, the majority (97% [3800/3917]) had either scattered or heterogeneously dense tissue, and over half (57% [2235/3917]) alternated between dense and nondense status multiple times.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our results suggest that many cases of density status change may be attributable to intra- and interradiologist variability rather than to true underlying changes in density. These results lend support to consideration of automated density assessment because breast density status changes can significantly impact cancer risk assessment and supplemental screening recommendations.</p>","PeriodicalId":43134,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Breast Imaging","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Breast Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jbi/wbae048","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Changes in a patient's reported breast density status (dense vs nondense) trigger modifications in their cancer risk profile and supplemental screening recommendations. This study tracked the frequency and longitudinal sequence of breast density status changes among patients who received serial mammograms.

Methods: This IRB-approved, HIPAA-compliant retrospective cohort study tracked breast density changes among patients who received at least 2 mammograms over an 8-year study period. BI-RADS density assessment categories A through D, visually determined at the time of screening, were abstracted from electronic medical records and dichotomized into either nondense (categories A or B) or dense (categories C or D) status. A sequence analysis of longitudinal changes in density status was performed using Microsoft SQL.

Results: A total of 58 895 patients underwent 231 997 screening mammograms. Most patients maintained the same BI-RADS density category A through D (87.35% [51 444/58 895]) and density status (93.35% [54 978/58 859]) throughout the study period. Among patients whose density status changed, the majority (97% [3800/3917]) had either scattered or heterogeneously dense tissue, and over half (57% [2235/3917]) alternated between dense and nondense status multiple times.

Conclusion: Our results suggest that many cases of density status change may be attributable to intra- and interradiologist variability rather than to true underlying changes in density. These results lend support to consideration of automated density assessment because breast density status changes can significantly impact cancer risk assessment and supplemental screening recommendations.

乳房密度状态变化:频率、顺序和实践意义。
目的:患者报告的乳腺密度状态(致密与不致密)的变化会导致其癌症风险概况和补充筛查建议发生变化。本研究跟踪了接受连续乳房 X 光检查的患者乳腺密度状态变化的频率和纵向顺序:这项经 IRB 批准、符合 HIPAA 标准的回顾性队列研究跟踪了在 8 年研究期内至少接受过 2 次乳房 X 光检查的患者的乳腺密度变化情况。研究人员从电子病历中摘录了筛查时目测确定的 BI-RADS 密度评估类别 A 到 D,并将其二分为非致密(类别 A 或 B)或致密(类别 C 或 D)状态。使用 Microsoft SQL 对密度状态的纵向变化进行了序列分析:共有 58 895 名患者接受了 231 997 次乳房 X 光筛查。大多数患者在整个研究期间保持了相同的 BI-RADS 密度类别 A 到 D(87.35% [51 444/58 895])和密度状态(93.35% [54 978/58 859])。在密度状态发生变化的患者中,大多数(97% [3800/3917])的组织为分散或异质致密,超过一半(57% [2235/3917])的患者在致密和不致密状态之间交替多次:我们的研究结果表明,许多密度状态变化的病例可能是由于放射线学家内部和放射线学家之间的差异造成的,而不是密度的真正潜在变化。这些结果支持考虑采用自动密度评估,因为乳腺密度状态的变化会对癌症风险评估和补充筛查建议产生重大影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
20.00%
发文量
81
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信