Literature DB >> 1573664

Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging parameters and their relationship to mammographic pattern.

C S Poon1, M J Bronskill, R M Henkelman, N F Boyd.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer exhibits wide international variation in incidence, which has led to the identification of several factors correlating with the risk of the disease. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) techniques can provide quantitative information about the biological and physical properties of tissue.
PURPOSE: This work tested several magnetic resonance tissue parameters for their ability to distinguish quantitatively between breast tissues in subjects at substantially different risk for breast cancer as defined indirectly by their parenchymal pattern on mammograms.
METHODS: Quantitative MRI parameters (relative water content, longitudinal relaxation time [T1], and transverse relaxation time [T2]) were measured for breast tissue using newly developed techniques in two groups of women with mammographic parenchymal appearance associated with high (Dy pattern [i.e., extensive nodular or diffuse density]; n = 12) or low (N1 pattern [i.e., breast containing mainly fat]; n = 11) risk of breast cancer.
RESULTS: The two groups have significantly different average relative water content (P less than .0001) and average T1 (P less than .0001). Pixel histograms of T2 values show marked differences between the two groups which can be characterized with a fourth moment parameter.
CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative MRI techniques exhibit good potential for assessing tissue characteristics in the breast that are associated with risk of breast cancer. IMPLICATIONS: Future work will address the direct correlation of MRI parameters with risk of breast cancer.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1573664     DOI: 10.1093/jnci/84.10.777

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst        ISSN: 0027-8874            Impact factor:   13.506


  9 in total

1.  Differences in breast density assessment using mammography, tomosynthesis and MRI and their implications for practice.

Authors:  A Tagliafico; G Tagliafico; N Houssami
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2013-10-28       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Tissue characterisation of atherosclerotic carotid plaques by MRI.

Authors:  M Görtler; A Goldmann; W Mohr; B Widder
Journal:  Neuroradiology       Date:  1995-11       Impact factor: 2.804

3.  A pilot study of compositional analysis of the breast and estimation of breast mammographic density using three-dimensional T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Michael Khazen; Ruth M L Warren; Caroline R M Boggis; Emilie C Bryant; Sadie Reed; Iqbal Warsi; Linda J Pointon; Gek E Kwan-Lim; Deborah Thompson; Ros Eeles; Doug Easton; D Gareth Evans; Martin O Leach
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 4.254

4.  Comparison of breast tissue measurements using magnetic resonance imaging, digital mammography and a mathematical algorithm.

Authors:  Lee-Jane W Lu; Thomas K Nishino; Raleigh F Johnson; Fatima Nayeem; Donald G Brunder; Hyunsu Ju; Morton H Leonard; James J Grady; Tuenchit Khamapirad
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2012-10-09       Impact factor: 3.609

Review 5.  New magnetic resonance imaging techniques for the detection of breast cancer.

Authors:  K Orang-Khadivi; B L Pierce; C M Ollom; L J Floyd; R L Siegle; R F Williams
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 4.872

6.  Quantitative correlation of breast tissue parameters using magnetic resonance and X-ray mammography.

Authors:  S J Graham; M J Bronskill; J W Byng; M J Yaffe; N F Boyd
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1996-01       Impact factor: 7.640

7.  Associations of Serum Levels of Sex Hormones in Follicular and Luteal Phases of the Menstrual Cycle with Breast Tissue Characteristics in Young Women.

Authors:  Linda Linton; Monica Taylor; Sheila Dunn; Lisa Martin; Sonia Chavez; Greg Stanitz; Ella Huszti; Salomon Minkin; Norman Boyd
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-10-07       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Breast MRI segmentation for density estimation: Do different methods give the same results and how much do differences matter?

Authors:  Simon J Doran; John H Hipwell; Rachel Denholm; Björn Eiben; Marta Busana; David J Hawkes; Martin O Leach; Isabel Dos Santos Silva
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2017-07-25       Impact factor: 4.071

9.  Breast density assessment using a 3T MRI system: comparison among different sequences.

Authors:  Alberto Tagliafico; Bianca Bignotti; Giulio Tagliafico; Davide Astengo; Lucia Martino; Sonia Airaldi; Alessio Signori; Maria Pia Sormani; Nehmat Houssami; Massimo Calabrese
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-06-03       Impact factor: 3.240

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.