PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to compare the measurements of breast density using three-dimensional (3-D) automated whole breast ultrasound (ABUS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). METHODS: In this study, 3-D ABUS and MRI breast images were obtained from 40 patients-bilaterally in 27 patients and unilaterally (due to operation in the contralateral breast) in 13 patients, To differentiate the fibroglandular and fatty tissues in ABUS and MRI images, the fuzzy C-mean classifier was used. Calculated values for percent density and breast volume from the two modalities were compared to and correlated with linear regression analysis. Intraoperator and interoperator variations among eight cases were evaluated to verify the consistency of the density analysis. RESULTS: Mean percent density and breast volume derived from ABUS (17.63 +/- 11.87% and 418.30 +/- 132.97 cm3, respectively) and MRI images (23.79 +/- 16.62% and 544.90 +/- 207.41 cm3) demonstrated good correlation (R = 0.917 and R = 0.884). Intraoperator and interoperator analyses yielded slightly larger coefficients of variation for percent density and breast volume in ABUS compared to MRI. However, the differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: ABUS and MRI showed high correlation for breast density and breast volume quantification. Both modalities could provide useful breast density information to physicians.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to compare the measurements of breast density using three-dimensional (3-D) automated whole breast ultrasound (ABUS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). METHODS: In this study, 3-D ABUS and MRI breast images were obtained from 40 patients-bilaterally in 27 patients and unilaterally (due to operation in the contralateral breast) in 13 patients, To differentiate the fibroglandular and fatty tissues in ABUS and MRI images, the fuzzy C-mean classifier was used. Calculated values for percent density and breast volume from the two modalities were compared to and correlated with linear regression analysis. Intraoperator and interoperator variations among eight cases were evaluated to verify the consistency of the density analysis. RESULTS: Mean percent density and breast volume derived from ABUS (17.63 +/- 11.87% and 418.30 +/- 132.97 cm3, respectively) and MRI images (23.79 +/- 16.62% and 544.90 +/- 207.41 cm3) demonstrated good correlation (R = 0.917 and R = 0.884). Intraoperator and interoperator analyses yielded slightly larger coefficients of variation for percent density and breast volume in ABUS compared to MRI. However, the differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: ABUS and MRI showed high correlation for breast density and breast volume quantification. Both modalities could provide useful breast density information to physicians.
Authors: Jennifer Stone; Gillian S Dite; Anoma Gunasekara; Dallas R English; Margaret R E McCredie; Graham G Giles; Jennifer N Cawson; Robert A Hegele; Anna M Chiarelli; Martin J Yaffe; Norman F Boyd; John L Hopper Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Saskia van Engeland; Peter R Snoeren; Henkjan Huisman; Carla Boetes; Nico Karssemeijer Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 10.048
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
Authors: Catherine Klifa; Julio Carballido-Gamio; Lisa Wilmes; Anne Laprie; John Shepherd; Jessica Gibbs; Bo Fan; Susan Noworolski; Nola Hylton Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2009-07-23 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Harriet Johansson; Sara Gandini; Bernardo Bonanni; Frederique Mariette; Aliana Guerrieri-Gonzaga; Davide Serrano; Enrico Cassano; Francesca Ramazzotto; Laura Baglietto; Maria Teresa Sandri; Andrea Decensi Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2007-04-28 Impact factor: 4.872