Literature DB >> 18841850

Volumetric breast density evaluation from ultrasound tomography images.

Carri K Glide-Hurst1, Neb Duric, Peter Littrup.   

Abstract

Previous ultrasound tomography work conducted by our group showed a direct correlation between measured sound speed and physical density in vitro, and increased in vivo sound speed with increasing mammographic density, a known risk factor for breast cancer. Building on these empirical results, the purpose of this work was to explore a metric to quantify breast density using our ultrasound tomography sound speed images in a manner analogous to computer-assisted mammogram segmentation for breast density analysis. Therefore, volumetric ultrasound percent density (USPD) is determined by segmenting high sound speed areas from each tomogram using a k-means clustering routine, integrating these results over the entire volume of the breast, and dividing by whole-breast volume. First, a breast phantom comprised of fat inclusions embedded in fibroglandular tissue was scanned four times with both our ultrasound tomography clinical prototype (with 4 mm spatial resolution) and CT. The coronal transmission tomograms and CT images were analyzed using semiautomatic segmentation routines, and the integrated areas of the phantom's fat inclusions were compared between the four repeated scans. The average variability for inclusion segmentation was approximately 7% and approximately2%, respectively, and a close correlation was observed in the integrated areas between the two modalities. Next, a cohort of 93 patients was imaged, yielding volumetric coverage of the breast (45-75 sound speed tomograms/patient). The association of USPD with mammographic percent density (MPD) was evaluated using two measures: (1) qualitative, as determined by a radiologist's visual assessment using BI-RADS Criteria and (2) quantitative, via digitization and semiautomatic segmentation of craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique mammograms. A strong positive association between BI-RADS category and USPD was demonstrated [Spearman rho = 0.69 (p < 0.001)], with significant differences between all BI-RADS categories as assessed by one-way ANOVA and Scheffé posthoc analysis. Furthermore, comparing USPD to calculated mammographic density yielded moderate to strong positive associations for CC and MLO views (r2 = 0.75 and 0.59, respectively). These results support the hypothesis that utilizing USPD as an analogue to mammographic breast density is feasible, providing a nonionizing, whole-breast analysis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18841850     DOI: 10.1118/1.2964092

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  27 in total

Review 1.  Breast tissue composition and susceptibility to breast cancer.

Authors:  Norman F Boyd; Lisa J Martin; Michael Bronskill; Martin J Yaffe; Neb Duric; Salomon Minkin
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2010-07-08       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Comparative study of density analysis using automated whole breast ultrasound and MRI.

Authors:  Woo Kyung Moon; Yi-Wei Shen; Chiun-Sheng Huang; Sheng-Chy Luo; Aida Kuzucan; Jeon-Hor Chen; Ruey-Feng Chang
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Impact of positional difference on the measurement of breast density using MRI.

Authors:  Jeon-Hor Chen; Siwa Chan; Yi-Ting Tang; Jia Shen Hon; Po-Chuan Tseng; Angela T Cheriyan; Nikita Rakesh Shah; Dah-Cherng Yeh; San-Kan Lee; Wen-Pin Chen; Christine E McLaren; Min-Ying Su
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Repeatability of quantitative MRI measurements in normal breast tissue.

Authors:  Sheye O Aliu; Ella F Jones; Ania Azziz; John Kornak; Lisa J Wilmes; David C Newitt; Sachiko A Suzuki; Catherine Klifa; Jessica Gibbs; Evelyn C Proctor; Bonnie N Joe; Nola M Hylton
Journal:  Transl Oncol       Date:  2014-02-01       Impact factor: 4.243

5.  Current and Future Methods for Measuring Breast Density: A Brief Comparative Review.

Authors:  Mark A Sak; Peter J Littrup; Neb Duric; Maeve Mullooly; Mark E Sherman; Gretchen L Gierach
Journal:  Breast Cancer Manag       Date:  2015-08-28

6.  Comparison of breast density measured by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry with mammographic density among adult women in Hawaii.

Authors:  Gertraud Maskarinec; Yukiko Morimoto; Yihe Daida; Aurelie Laidevant; Serghei Malkov; John A Shepherd; Rachel Novotny
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol       Date:  2010-08-04       Impact factor: 2.984

7.  Breast-density assessment with hand-held ultrasound: A novel biomarker to assess breast cancer risk and to tailor screening?

Authors:  Sergio J Sanabria; Orcun Goksel; Katharina Martini; Serafino Forte; Thomas Frauenfelder; Rahel A Kubik-Huch; Marga B Rominger
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-03-19       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  Dedicated breast CT: fibroglandular volume measurements in a diagnostic population.

Authors:  Srinivasan Vedantham; Linxi Shi; Andrew Karellas; Avice M O'Connell
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 4.071

9.  Breast density measurements with ultrasound tomography: a comparison with film and digital mammography.

Authors:  Neb Duric; Norman Boyd; Peter Littrup; Mark Sak; Lukasz Myc; Cuiping Li; Erik West; Sal Minkin; Lisa Martin; Martin Yaffe; Steven Schmidt; Muhammad Faiz; Jason Shen; Olga Melnichouk; Qing Li; Teri Albrecht
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 4.071

10.  Determinants of the reliability of ultrasound tomography sound speed estimates as a surrogate for volumetric breast density.

Authors:  Zeina G Khodr; Mark A Sak; Ruth M Pfeiffer; Nebojsa Duric; Peter Littrup; Lisa Bey-Knight; Haythem Ali; Patricia Vallieres; Mark E Sherman; Gretchen L Gierach
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 4.071

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.