Filter publications
American Journal of Roentgenology, Jan 2017
Using Volumetric Breast Density to Quantify the Potential Masking Risk of Mammographic Density
Destounis, Johnston, Highnam, Arieno, Morgan, Chan
“Both the categoric and continuous measures of MBD obtained with the VolparaDensity tool were stronger risk factors than the visual BI-RADS categories (3.9-fold, 4.0-fold, and 3.6-fold).”
Using an automated measure of breast density to explore the association between ethnicity and mammographic density in Australian women
Bell, Evans, Fox, Pridmore
“Mammographic density as assessed by VDG was positively associated with ever exposure to MHT and inversely associated with age. Being born in a country with predominantly Asian ancestry was associated with higher VDG when controlled for age and MHT exposure.”
A randomized controlled trial of digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography in population-based screening in Bergen: interim analysis of performance indicators from the To-Be trial
Aase, Holen, Pedersen, Houssami, Haldorsen, Sebuødegård, Hanestad, Hofvind
“Our density-stratified analyses identified that recall rates were lower for DBT only for women with non-dense breasts (VDG 1 and VDG 2). Time spent both on screen reading and consensus was longer for DBT than for DM. Average MGD did not differ between the two techniques.”
Volumetric breast density affects performance of digital screening mammography
Wanders, Holland, Veldhuis, Mann, Pijnappel, Peeters, van Gils, Karssemeijer
“Volumetric mammographic density, automatically measured on digital mammograms, impacts screening performance measures along the same patterns as established with ACR breast density categories.”
Geographic variation in volumetric breast density between screening regions in the Netherlands
van der Waal, Emaus, Bakker, den Heeten, Karssemeijer, Pijnappel, Veldhuis, Verbeek, van Gils, Broeders
“There appears to be geographic variation in mammographic density in the Netherlands, emphasizing the importance of including breast density as parameter in the evaluation of screening performance.”
