The purpose was to present mean breast density of Korean women according to age using fully automated volumetric assessment. This study included 5,967 screening normal or benign mammograms (mean age, 46.2 +/- 9.7; range, 30-89 years), from cancer-screening program. We evaluated mean fibroglandular tissue volume, breast tissue volume, volumetric breast density (VBD), and the results were 53.7 +/- 30.8 cm3, 383.8 +/- 205.2 cm3, and 15.8% +/- 7.3%. The frequency of dense breasts and mean VBD by age group were 94.3% and 19.1% +/- 6.7% for the 30s (n = 1,484), 91.4% and 17.2% +/- 6.8% for the 40s (n = 2,706), 72.2% and 12.4% +/- 6.2% for the 50s (n = 1,138), 44.0% and 8.6% +/- 4.3% for the 60s (n = 89), 39.1% and 8.0% +/- 3.8% for the 70s (n = 138), and 39.1% and 8.0% +/- 3.5% for the 80s (n = 12). The frequency of dense breasts was higher in younger women (n = 4,313, 92.3%) than older women (n = 1,654, 59.8%). Mean VBD decreased with aging or menopause, and was about 16% for 46-year-old-Korean women, much higher than in other countries. The proportion of dense breasts sharply decreases in Korean women between 40 and 69 years of age.
Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Aging ; Asian Continental Ancestry Group ; Automation ; Breast/*diagnostic imaging ; Breast Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging ; Female ; Humans ; Image Processing, Computer-Assisted ; *Mammography ; Menopause ; Middle Aged ; Republic of Korea

The purpose of this study was to summarize the results of a survey for physicians with specialties other than radiology about imaging studies of patients referred from other institutions. The survey was promoted through individual contacts or social network service and physicians who voluntarily responded to the survey were the subjects of the study. The questionnaire consisted of 11 questions about basic information and referrals about medical imaging. A total of 160 physicians from 30 specialties participated in the survey and 95.6% of the respondents worked in tertiary care center or general hospital. Patients were frequently referred with outside medical images. The most frequently referred imaging modalities were computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. However, radiological reports from outside institutions were rarely referred. Most physicians thought that reinterpretation for outside imaging is necessary to acquire a secondary opinion. In conclusion, considering that outside radiological reports are frequently missing and there are high demands on reinterpretation for outside imaging, guidelines for referral of radiological reports with medical imaging, basic elements of radiological reports, and reinterpretation need to be developed.