Caitlin M Maloney, Shirlene Paul, Jordan L Lieberenz, Lisa R Stempel, Mia A Levy, Rosalinda Alvarado
{"title":"乳房密度状态变化:频率、顺序和实践意义。","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":"{\"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}","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
摘要
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。
Breast Density Status Changes: Frequency, Sequence, and Practice Implications.
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.