{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,7,27]],"date-time":"2026-07-27T22:01:20Z","timestamp":1785189680287,"version":"3.55.0"},"reference-count":15,"publisher":"Scientific Scholar","content-domain":{"domain":["clinicalimagingscience.org"],"crossmark-restriction":true},"short-container-title":["JCIS"],"abstract":"\n Objectives:<\/jats:title>\n \n The objectives of the study are to investigate if there is a long-term change in density assessment between the 4\n th<\/jats:sup>\n and 5\n th<\/jats:sup>\n Editions of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). Specifically, to assess the density reporting patterns of radiologists at a single institution several years after changes were made in density assessment criteria in BI-RADS 5\n th<\/jats:sup>\n Edition, which focused on masking effect of tissue and removed the percent-density value system as a criterion for density assessment.\n <\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n Material and Methods:<\/jats:title>\n \n Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) compliant, single institution study where mammographic density data were obtained for 4 years before the BI-RADS 5\n th<\/jats:sup>\n Edition change and 4 years after it. The total sample size was 132,326 mammograms. Comparison of non-dense versus dense breast categories was specifically made to evaluate any changes that could have led to a change in the needs for supplemental screening after the new guidelines. Chi-square tests were used to evaluate the distribution of density type among mammograms evaluated before and after the new guidelines were implemented. Statistical significance was considered at the \u03b1 = 0.05 threshold, and two-sided\n p<\/jats:italic>\n -values are reported.\n <\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n Results:<\/jats:title>\n \n After implementation of the 5\n th<\/jats:sup>\n Edition, there was an overall increase in mammograms described as dense (39.1%) compared to the old guidelines (38.4%,\n p<\/jats:italic>\n = 0.01); however, the effect size of this difference was statistically significant but of negligible practical magnitude (Phi = 0.01).\n <\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n Conclusion:<\/jats:title>\n \n This large single-institution analysis demonstrates that the adoption of the BI-RADS 5\n th<\/jats:sup>\n Edition Density Assessment Guidelines has led to a modest but sustained increase in the proportion of mammograms categorized as dense. While the effect size is small, even slight shifts in density classification may influence patient management and supplemental screening utilization in the new era of mandatory breast density notification.\n <\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.25259\/jcis_285_2025","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2026,6,16]],"date-time":"2026-06-16T09:19:16Z","timestamp":1781601556000},"page":"23","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.25259\/crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":1,"title":["Long-term changes in breast density reporting after implementation of BI-RADS 5\n th<\/sup>\n edition guidelines"],"prefix":"10.25259","volume":"16","author":[{"given":"Brielle Marie","family":"Paolini","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Departments of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, United States,"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Ian","family":"Smith","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Departments of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, United States,"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Rebecca","family":"Leddy","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Departments of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, United States,"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Abbie","family":"Cluver","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Departments of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, United States,"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Frank","family":"Vento","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Departments of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, United States,"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Madelene C.","family":"Lewis","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Departments of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, United States,"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Heather R.","family":"Collins","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Departments of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, United States,"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Abid","family":"Irshad","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Departments of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, United States,"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"10894","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2026,6,16]]},"reference":[{"key":"10.25259\/JCIS_285_2025\/ref-1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"267","DOI":"10.1136\/jech.52.4.267","article-title":"Effect of mammographic breast density on breast cancer screening performance: A study in Nijmegen, the Netherlands","volume":"52","author":"Van Gils","year":"1998","journal-title":"J Epidemiol Community Health"},{"key":"10.25259\/JCIS_285_2025\/ref-2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"297","DOI":"10.1148\/radiology.188.2.8327668","article-title":"Imaging of the radiographically dense breast","volume":"188","author":"Jackson","year":"1993","journal-title":"Radiology"},{"key":"10.25259\/JCIS_285_2025\/ref-3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1432","DOI":"10.1093\/jnci\/djh269","article-title":"Factors contributing to mammography failure in women aged 40-49 years","volume":"96","author":"Buist","year":"2004","journal-title":"J Natl Cancer Inst"},{"key":"10.25259\/JCIS_285_2025\/ref-4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"376","DOI":"10.1148\/radiol.2461070200","article-title":"Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: Exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST","volume":"246","author":"Pisano","year":"2008","journal-title":"Radiology"},{"key":"10.25259\/JCIS_285_2025\/ref-5","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"3137","DOI":"10.1200\/JCO.2015.60.8869","article-title":"Breast density and benign breast disease: Risk assessment to identify women at high risk of breast cancer","volume":"33","author":"Tice","year":"2015","journal-title":"J Clin Oncol"},{"key":"10.25259\/JCIS_285_2025\/ref-6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"227","DOI":"10.1056\/NEJMoa062790","article-title":"Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer","volume":"356","author":"Boyd","year":"2007","journal-title":"N Engl J Med"},{"key":"10.25259\/JCIS_285_2025\/ref-7","author":"D'Orsi","year":"2013"},{"key":"10.25259\/JCIS_285_2025\/ref-8","first-page":"18295","article-title":"Mammography Quality Standards Act: Final Rule","volume-title":"Federal Register","volume":"88","author":"U.S. Food and Drug Administration","year":"2023"},{"key":"10.25259\/JCIS_285_2025\/ref-9","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1366","DOI":"10.2214\/AJR.16.16561","article-title":"Effects of changes in BI-RADS density assessment guidelines (fourth versus fifth edition) on breast density assessment: Intra- and interreader agreements and density distribution","volume":"207","author":"Irshad","year":"2016","journal-title":"AJR Am J Roentgenol"},{"key":"10.25259\/JCIS_285_2025\/ref-10","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"703","DOI":"10.2214\/AJR.16.17525","article-title":"Comparison of visual assessment of breast density in BI-RADS 4th and 5th Editions with automated volumetric measurement","volume":"209","author":"Youk","year":"2017","journal-title":"AJR Am J Roentgenol"},{"key":"10.25259\/JCIS_285_2025\/ref-11","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"109585","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ejrad.2021.109585","article-title":"The mammographic breast density distribution of Finnish women with breast cancer and comparison of breast density reporting using the 4th and 5th Editions of the breast imaging-reporting and data system","volume":"137","author":"Nyk\u00e4nen","year":"2021","journal-title":"Eur J Radiol"},{"key":"10.25259\/JCIS_285_2025\/ref-12","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"943","DOI":"10.2214\/AJR.16.17518","article-title":"Changes in breast density reporting patterns of radiologists after publication of the 5th Edition BI-RADS guidelines. A single institution experience","volume":"209","author":"Irshad","year":"2017","journal-title":"AJR Am J Roentgenol"},{"key":"10.25259\/JCIS_285_2025\/ref-13","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2058460120937381","DOI":"10.1177\/2058460120937381","article-title":"Comparison of breast density assessments according to BI-RADS 4th and 5th Editions and experience level","volume":"9","author":"Gemici","year":"2020","journal-title":"Acta Radiol Open"},{"key":"10.25259\/JCIS_285_2025\/ref-14","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"629","DOI":"10.1093\/jnci\/djy210","article-title":"Trends in clinical breast density assessment from the br-east cancer surveillance consortium","volume":"111","author":"Sprague","year":"2019","journal-title":"J Natl Cancer Inst"},{"key":"10.25259\/JCIS_285_2025\/ref-15","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"21","DOI":"10.1016\/j.clinimag.2021.11.034","article-title":"Persistent inter-observer variability of breast density assessment using BI-RADS\u00ae 5th Edition guidelines","volume":"83","author":"Portnow","year":"2022","journal-title":"Clin Imaging"}],"container-title":["Journal of Clinical Imaging Science"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/clinicalimagingscience.org\/long-term-changes-in-breast-density-reporting-after-implementation-of-bi-rads-5th-edition-guidelines\/","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/clinicalimagingscience.org\/long-term-changes-in-breast-density-reporting-after-implementation-of-bi-rads-5th-edition-guidelines\/","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,6,16]],"date-time":"2026-06-16T09:19:17Z","timestamp":1781601557000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/clinicalimagingscience.org\/long-term-changes-in-breast-density-reporting-after-implementation-of-bi-rads-5th-edition-guidelines\/"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2026,6,16]]},"references-count":15,"alternative-id":["10.25259\/JCIS_285_2025"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.25259\/jcis_285_2025","relation":{},"ISSN":["2156-5597","2156-7514"],"issn-type":[{"value":"2156-5597","type":"electronic"},{"value":"2156-7514","type":"print"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2026,6,16]]},"article-number":"23"}}