This article is part of the supplement: British Society of Breast Radiology Annual Scientific Meeting 2012

Poster presentation

Repeatability of breast density visual assessment

L Walshaw1*, JC Sergeant2, M Wilson3, S Steed1, N Barr3, U Beetles3, C Boggis3, S Bundred3, S Gadde3, Y Lim3, S Whiteside4, DG Evans3, A Howell3 and SM Astley2

  • * Corresponding author: L Walshaw

Author Affiliations

1 Manchester Medical School, University of Manchester, UK

2 Institute of Population Health, University of Manchester, UK

3 Nightingale Centre and Genesis Prevention Centre, University Hospital of South Manchester, Manchester, UK

4 Department of Medical Statistics, University Hospital of South Manchester, Manchester, UK

For all author emails, please log on.

Breast Cancer Research 2012, 14(Suppl 1):P27 doi:10.1186/bcr3282


The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at: http://breast-cancer-research.com/content/14/S1/P27


Published:9 November 2012

© 2012 Walshaw et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

Introduction

Breast density, measured as the proportion of the breast occupied by fibroglandular tissue in a mammogram, is a strong and modifiable risk factor for breast cancer. Area-based estimates made by expert observers are a practical approach, but are subjective. Here we investigate repeatability of visual assessment of percentage breast density.

Methods

Seven mammographic film readers re-assessed the density of 100 normal full-field digital mammogram cases for which they had made density estimates at least 1 year previously as part of the Predicting Risk of Cancer at Screening (PROCAS) study. The mammograms for a given reader were selected to show a range in density, by randomly sampling 10 cases from each decile of density assessed by that reader. They were reviewed in similar reading conditions on both occasions using a visual analogue scale to record the assessments.

Results

For the majority of readers the difference in mean density between the two sets of readings was less than 6%, but the largest discrepancy between means was 14.7%. Bland-Altman plots were generated for each reader and showed considerable variation between readings on the two occasions. At best, the limits of agreement were -12.46% to +17.02%, and at worst they were -14.50% to +40.98%. The largest difference between first and second readings for each reader ranged from 26 to 65%.

Conclusion

Although density estimates made by a subset of these readers have been strongly related to cancer risk, the variability in reproducibility calls into question the usefulness of subjective assessment without prior evaluation of reader performance.