Abstract withdrawn by author

2011 Breast Cancer Research  
These abstracts are available online at http://breast-cancer-research.com/supplements/14/S1 US sensitivity 0.73(0.51 to 0.88) 0.73(0.48 to 0.89) US specificity 0.83 (0.68 to 0.92) 0.93 (0.8 to 0.98) US positive predictive value 0.70 (0.48 to 0.86) 0.82 (0.55 to 0.95) There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups. Abstracts P1 -P16 are educational and not included for publication online P2 Abstracts P1 -P16 are educational and not included for publication online
more » ... ication online Breast Cancer Research 2012, 14(Suppl 1):P2 Abstracts P1 -P16 are educational and not included for publication online P3 Abstracts P1 -P16 are educational and not included for publication online Breast Cancer Research 2012, 14(Suppl 1):P3 Abstracts P1 -P16 are educational and not included for publication online Abstracts P1 -P16 are educational and not included for publication online P5 Abstracts P1 -P16 are educational and not included for publication online Breast Cancer Research 2012, 14(Suppl 1):P5 Abstracts P1 -P16 are educational and not included for publication online P6 Abstracts P1 -P16 are educational and not included for publication online Breast Cancer Research 2012, 14(Suppl 1):P6 Abstracts P1 -P16 are educational and not included for publication online P7 Abstracts P1 -P16 are educational and not included for publication online Breast Cancer Research 2012, 14(Suppl 1):P7 Abstracts P1 -P16 are educational and not included for publication online P8 Abstracts P1 -P16 are educational and not included for publication online Breast Cancer Research 2012, 14(Suppl 1):P8 Abstracts P1 -P16 are educational and not included for publication online P9 Abstracts P1 -P16 are educational and not included for publication online Breast Cancer Research 2012, 14(Suppl 1):P9 Abstracts P1 -P16 are educational and not included for publication online P10 Abstracts P1 -P16 are educational and not included for publication online Breast Cancer Research 2012, 14(Suppl 1):P10 Abstracts P1 -P16 are educational and not included for publication online P11 Abstracts P1 -P16 are educational and not included for publication online Breast Cancer Research 2012, 14(Suppl 1):P11 Abstracts P1 -P16 are educational and not included for publication online P12 Abstracts P1 -P16 are educational and not included for publication online Breast Cancer Research 2012, 14(Suppl 1):P12 Abstracts P1 -P16 are educational and not included for publication online P13 Abstracts P1 -P16 are educational and not included for publication online Breast Cancer Research 2012, 14(Suppl 1):P13 Abstracts P1 -P16 are educational and not included for publication online P14 Abstracts P1 -P16 are educational and not included for publication online Breast Cancer Research 2012, 14(Suppl 1):P14 Abstracts P1 -P16 are educational and not included for publication online P15 Abstracts P1 -P16 are educational and not included for publication online Breast Cancer Research 2012, 14(Suppl 1):P15 Abstracts P1 -P16 are educational and not included for publication online P16 Abstracts P1 -P16 are educational and not included for publication online Breast Cancer Research 2012, 14(Suppl 1):P16 Abstracts P1 -P16 are educational and not included for publication online P17 Breast density measurement for personalised screening Introduction: Breast density is both a modifiable risk factor for breast cancer and an indicator of the sensitivity of mammography. Reliable measurement in the screening population could enable personalised screening to maximise early detection of cancer. In the Predicting Risk of Cancer at Screening (PROCAS) study, we are investigating different approaches to measuring breast density, and we present comparative data from one subjective method and two automated volumetric methods. Methods: The screening mammograms of 4,109 women enrolled in PROCAS were visually assessed independently by two experienced film readers, who recorded their estimates of percentage density on visual analogue scales (VAS). The mammograms were also processed by Quantra™ (Hologic Inc.) and Volpara (Matakina Technology Ltd). They were ranked according to density by each method, and the top 10% and 1% compared. Results: Of the 617 mammograms ranked in the most dense 10% by at least one method, only 127 were high density by all three methods. The overlap between the two volumetric methods was 214; between VAS and Quantra™ it was 195 and between VAS and Volpara it was 147. For the
doi:10.1186/bcr2959 fatcat:4iopyvtpznanlpzlfditzayhzy