Should We Adjust Visually Assessed Mammographic Density for Observer Variability?

Elaine F. Harkness; Jamie C. Sergeant; Mary Wilson; Ursula Beetles; Soujanya Gadde; Yit Y. Lim; Anthony Howell; D. Gareth Evans; Susan M. Astley

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-41546-8_68

Should We Adjust Visually Assessed Mammographic Density for Observer Variability?

Elaine F. Harkness, Jamie C. Sergeant, Mary Wilson, Ursula Beetles, Soujanya Gadde, Yit Y. Lim, Anthony Howell, D. Gareth Evans, Susan M. Astley

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Conference contribution › peer-review

Abstract

This study aimed to determine whether correcting for observer variability alters estimations of breast cancer risk associated with mammographic density. A case control design examined the relationship between mammographic density, measured by visual analogue scales (VAS), and the risk of breast cancer after correcting for observer variability. Mammographic density was assessed by two observers and average scores (V2) were adjusted to correct for observer variability (V2ad). Two case-control sets were identified: (i) breast cancer detected during screening at entry and (ii) breast cancer detected subsequently. Cases were matched to three controls. In the first case-control set the odds ratio for breast cancer was 4.6 (95 %CI 2.8–7.5) for the highest compared to the lowest quintile of V2, and was attenuated for V2ad (OR 3.1, 95 %CI 1.9–4.8). Similar findings were observed for the second case-control set. Not adjusting for observer variability may lead to an overestimate of the risk of breast cancer.

Original language	English
Title of host publication	Breast imaging
Subtitle of host publication	13th International Workshop, IWDM 2016, Malmö, Sweden, June 19-22, 2016, proceedings
Editors	Anders Tingberg, Kristina Lång, Pontus Timberg
Publisher	Springer Nature
Pages	540-547
ISBN (Print)	978-3-319-41545-1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41546-8_68
Publication status	Published - 2016

Publication series

Name	Lecture Notes in Computer Science
Volume	9699

Keywords

Digital
Mammogram
Breast cancer
Visual analogue scales (VAS)
Observer bias
Case-control study

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1007/978-3-319-41546-8_68

1 Participating in a conference, workshop, exhibition, performance, inquiry, course etc

International Workshop on Digital Mammography
Harkness, E. (Poster presenter)
19 Jun 2016 → 22 Jun 2016
Activity: Participating in or organising event(s) › Participating in a conference, workshop, exhibition, performance, inquiry, course etc › Research

Cite this

Harkness, E. F., Sergeant, J. C., Wilson, M., Beetles, U., Gadde, S., Lim, Y. Y., Howell, A., Evans, D. G., & Astley, S. M. (2016). Should We Adjust Visually Assessed Mammographic Density for Observer Variability? In A. Tingberg, K. Lång, & P. Timberg (Eds.), Breast imaging: 13th International Workshop, IWDM 2016, Malmö, Sweden, June 19-22, 2016, proceedings (pp. 540-547). (Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Vol. 9699). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41546-8_68

Harkness, Elaine F. ; Sergeant, Jamie C. ; Wilson, Mary et al. / Should We Adjust Visually Assessed Mammographic Density for Observer Variability?. Breast imaging: 13th International Workshop, IWDM 2016, Malmö, Sweden, June 19-22, 2016, proceedings. editor / Anders Tingberg ; Kristina Lång ; Pontus Timberg. Springer Nature, 2016. pp. 540-547 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science).

@inproceedings{20b643df93f24beeb66fa70bafc49fd9,

title = "Should We Adjust Visually Assessed Mammographic Density for Observer Variability?",

abstract = "This study aimed to determine whether correcting for observer variability alters estimations of breast cancer risk associated with mammographic density. A case control design examined the relationship between mammographic density, measured by visual analogue scales (VAS), and the risk of breast cancer after correcting for observer variability. Mammographic density was assessed by two observers and average scores (V2) were adjusted to correct for observer variability (V2ad). Two case-control sets were identified: (i) breast cancer detected during screening at entry and (ii) breast cancer detected subsequently. Cases were matched to three controls. In the first case-control set the odds ratio for breast cancer was 4.6 (95 %CI 2.8–7.5) for the highest compared to the lowest quintile of V2, and was attenuated for V2ad (OR 3.1, 95 %CI 1.9–4.8). Similar findings were observed for the second case-control set. Not adjusting for observer variability may lead to an overestimate of the risk of breast cancer.",

keywords = "Digital, Mammogram, Breast cancer, Visual analogue scales (VAS), Observer bias, Case-control study",

author = "Harkness, {Elaine F.} and Sergeant, {Jamie C.} and Mary Wilson and Ursula Beetles and Soujanya Gadde and Lim, {Yit Y.} and Anthony Howell and Evans, {D. Gareth} and Astley, {Susan M.}",

year = "2016",

doi = "10.1007/978-3-319-41546-8_68",

language = "English",

isbn = "978-3-319-41545-1",

series = "Lecture Notes in Computer Science",

publisher = "Springer Nature",

pages = "540--547",

editor = "Tingberg, {Anders } and L{\aa}ng, {Kristina } and Timberg, {Pontus }",

booktitle = "Breast imaging",

address = "United States",

}

Harkness, EF , Sergeant, JC, Wilson, M, Beetles, U, Gadde, S, Lim, YY, Howell, A , Evans, DG & Astley, SM 2016, Should We Adjust Visually Assessed Mammographic Density for Observer Variability? in A Tingberg, K Lång & P Timberg (eds), Breast imaging: 13th International Workshop, IWDM 2016, Malmö, Sweden, June 19-22, 2016, proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 9699, Springer Nature, pp. 540-547. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41546-8_68

Should We Adjust Visually Assessed Mammographic Density for Observer Variability? / Harkness, Elaine F.; Sergeant, Jamie C.; Wilson, Mary et al.
Breast imaging: 13th International Workshop, IWDM 2016, Malmö, Sweden, June 19-22, 2016, proceedings. ed. / Anders Tingberg; Kristina Lång; Pontus Timberg. Springer Nature, 2016. p. 540-547 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Vol. 9699).

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Conference contribution › peer-review