PURPOSE: A method and computer tool to estimate percentage magnetic resonance (MR) imaging (MRI) breast density using three-dimensional T(1)-weighted MRI is introduced, and compared with mammographic percentage density [X-ray mammography (XRM)]. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ethical approval and informed consent were obtained. A method to assess MRI breast density as percentage volume occupied by water-containing tissue on three-dimensional T(1)-weighted MR images is described and applied in a pilot study to 138 subjects who were imaged by both MRI and XRM during the Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Breast Screening study. For comparison, percentage mammographic density was measured from matching XRMs as a ratio of dense to total projection areas scored visually using a 21-point score and measured by applying a two-dimensional interactive program (CUMULUS). The MRI and XRM percent methods were compared, including assessment of left-right and interreader consistency. RESULTS: Percent MRI density correlated strongly (r = 0.78; P < 0.0001) with percent mammographic density estimated using Cumulus. Comparison with visual assessment also showed a strong correlation. The mammographic methods overestimate density compared with MRI volumetric assessment by a factor approaching 2. DISCUSSION: MRI provides direct three-dimensional measurement of the proportion of water-based tissue in the breast. It correlates well with visual and computerized percent mammographic density measurements. This method may have direct application in women having breast cancer screening by breast MRI and may aid in determination of risk.
PURPOSE: A method and computer tool to estimate percentage magnetic resonance (MR) imaging (MRI) breast density using three-dimensional T(1)-weighted MRI is introduced, and compared with mammographic percentage density [X-ray mammography (XRM)]. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ethical approval and informed consent were obtained. A method to assess MRI breast density as percentage volume occupied by water-containing tissue on three-dimensional T(1)-weighted MR images is described and applied in a pilot study to 138 subjects who were imaged by both MRI and XRM during the Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Breast Screening study. For comparison, percentage mammographic density was measured from matching XRMs as a ratio of dense to total projection areas scored visually using a 21-point score and measured by applying a two-dimensional interactive program (CUMULUS). The MRI and XRM percent methods were compared, including assessment of left-right and interreader consistency. RESULTS: Percent MRI density correlated strongly (r = 0.78; P < 0.0001) with percent mammographic density estimated using Cumulus. Comparison with visual assessment also showed a strong correlation. The mammographic methods overestimate density compared with MRI volumetric assessment by a factor approaching 2. DISCUSSION: MRI provides direct three-dimensional measurement of the proportion of water-based tissue in the breast. It correlates well with visual and computerized percent mammographic density measurements. This method may have direct application in women having breast cancer screening by breast MRI and may aid in determination of risk.
Authors: Jun Wei; Heang-Ping Chan; Mark A Helvie; Marilyn A Roubidoux; Berkman Sahiner; Lubomir M Hadjiiski; Chuan Zhou; Sophie Paquerault; Thomas Chenevert; Mitchell M Goodsitt Journal: Med Phys Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Norman F Boyd; Helen Guo; Lisa J Martin; Limei Sun; Jennifer Stone; Eve Fishell; Roberta A Jong; Greg Hislop; Anna Chiarelli; Salomon Minkin; Martin J Yaffe Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-01-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: J W Byng; M J Yaffe; R A Jong; R S Shumak; G A Lockwood; D L Tritchler; N F Boyd Journal: Radiographics Date: 1998 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: J M Varley; G McGown; M Thorncroft; M F Santibanez-Koref; A M Kelsey; K J Tricker; D G Evans; J M Birch Journal: Cancer Res Date: 1997-08-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: M O Leach; C R M Boggis; A K Dixon; D F Easton; R A Eeles; D G R Evans; F J Gilbert; I Griebsch; R J C Hoff; P Kessar; S R Lakhani; S M Moss; A Nerurkar; A R Padhani; L J Pointon; D Thompson; R M L Warren Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 May 21-27 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: N F Boyd; J W Byng; R A Jong; E K Fishell; L E Little; A B Miller; G A Lockwood; D L Tritchler; M J Yaffe Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1995-05-03 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Gillian Mitchell; Antonis C Antoniou; Ruth Warren; Susan Peock; Judith Brown; Russell Davies; Jenny Mattison; Margaret Cook; Iqbal Warsi; D Gareth Evans; Diana Eccles; Fiona Douglas; Joan Paterson; Shirley Hodgson; Louise Izatt; Trevor Cole; Lucy Burgess; Ros Eeles; Douglas F Easton Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2006-02-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Daniel H-E Chang; Jeon-Hor Chen; Muqing Lin; Shadfar Bahri; Hon J Yu; Rita S Mehta; Ke Nie; David J B Hsiang; Orhan Nalcioglu; Min-Ying Su Journal: Med Phys Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Vicki Hart; Katherine W Reeves; Susan R Sturgeon; Nicholas G Reich; Lynnette Leidy Sievert; Karla Kerlikowske; Lin Ma; John Shepherd; Jeffrey A Tice; Amir Pasha Mahmoudzadeh; Serghei Malkov; Brian L Sprague Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2015-08-27 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Anna H Wu; Darcy Spicer; Agustin Garcia; Chiu-Chen Tseng; Linda Hovanessian-Larsen; Pulin Sheth; Sue Ellen Martin; Debra Hawes; Christy Russell; Heather MacDonald; Debu Tripathy; Min-Ying Su; Giske Ursin; Malcolm C Pike Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2015-08-14
Authors: Ke Nie; Daniel Chang; Jeon-Hor Chen; Tzu-Ching Shih; Chieh-Chih Hsu; Orhan Nalcioglu; Min-Ying Su Journal: Med Phys Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Mark Sak; Neb Duric; Peter Littrup; Lisa Bey-Knight; Haythem Ali; Patricia Vallieres; Mark E Sherman; Gretchen L Gierach Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol Date: 2016-09-29 Impact factor: 2.998