Literature DB >> 21371912

Calibrated measures for breast density estimation.

John J Heine1, Ke Cao, Dana E Rollison.   

Abstract

RATIONALE AND
OBJECTIVES: Breast density is a significant breast cancer risk factor measured from mammograms. Evidence suggests that the spatial variation in mammograms may also be associated with risk. We investigated the variation in calibrated mammograms as a breast cancer risk factor and explored its relationship with other measures of breast density using full field digital mammography (FFDM).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A matched case-control analysis was used to assess a spatial variation breast density measure in calibrated FFDM images, normalized for the image acquisition technique variation. Three measures of breast density were compared between cases and controls: (a) the calibrated average measure, (b) the calibrated variation measure, and (c) the standard percentage of breast density (PD) measure derived from operator-assisted labeling. Linear correlation and statistical relationships between these three breast density measures were also investigated.
RESULTS: Risk estimates associated with the lowest to highest quartiles for the calibrated variation measure were greater in magnitude (odds ratios: 1.0 [ref.], 3.5, 6.3, and 11.3) than the corresponding risk estimates for quartiles of the standard PD measure (odds ratios: 1.0 [ref.], 2.3, 5.6, and 6.5) and the calibrated average measure (odds ratios: 1.0 [ref.], 2.4, 2.3, and 4.4). The three breast density measures were highly correlated, showed an inverse relationship with breast area, and related by a mixed distribution relationship.
CONCLUSION: The three measures of breast density capture different attributes of the same data field. These preliminary findings indicate the variation measure is a viable automated method for assessing breast density. Insights gained by this work may be used to develop a standard for measuring breast density.
Copyright © 2011 AUR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21371912      PMCID: PMC3073034          DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2010.12.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Radiol        ISSN: 1076-6332            Impact factor:   3.173


  28 in total

1.  On the statistical nature of mammograms.

Authors:  J J Heine; S R Deans; R P Velthuizen; L P Clarke
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 2.  Mammographic tissue, breast cancer risk, serial image analysis, and digital mammography. Part 1. Tissue and related risk factors.

Authors:  John J Heine; Poonam Malhotra
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 3.173

3.  Spectral analysis of full field digital mammography data.

Authors:  John J Heine; Robert P Velthuizen
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  A volumetric method for estimation of breast density on digitized screen-film mammograms.

Authors:  Olga Pawluczyk; Bindu J Augustine; Martin J Yaffe; Dan Rico; Jiwei Yang; Gordon E Mawdsley; Norman F Boyd
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Quantitative assessment of mammographic breast density: relationship with breast cancer risk.

Authors:  Jennifer A Harvey; Viktor E Bovbjerg
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2003-11-14       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Breast patterns as an index of risk for developing breast cancer.

Authors:  J N Wolfe
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1976-06       Impact factor: 3.959

7.  Risk for breast cancer development determined by mammographic parenchymal pattern.

Authors:  J N Wolfe
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1976-05       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  A quantitative description of the percentage of breast density measurement using full-field digital mammography.

Authors:  John J Heine; Ke Cao; Dana E Rollison; Gail Tiffenberg; Jerry A Thomas
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 3.173

9.  Quantitative classification of mammographic densities and breast cancer risk: results from the Canadian National Breast Screening Study.

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

10.  A calibration approach to glandular tissue composition estimation in digital mammography.

Authors:  J Kaufhold; J A Thomas; J W Eberhard; C E Galbo; D E González Trotter
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 4.071

View more
  17 in total

1.  A novel automated mammographic density measure and breast cancer risk.

Authors:  John J Heine; Christopher G Scott; Thomas A Sellers; Kathleen R Brandt; Daniel J Serie; Fang-Fang Wu; Marilyn J Morton; Beth A Schueler; Fergus J Couch; Janet E Olson; V Shane Pankratz; Celine M Vachon
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2012-07-03       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) breast composition descriptors: automated measurement development for full field digital mammography.

Authors:  E E Fowler; T A Sellers; B Lu; J J Heine
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Automated Volumetric Breast Density derived by Shape and Appearance Modeling.

Authors:  Serghei Malkov; Karla Kerlikowske; John Shepherd
Journal:  Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng       Date:  2014-03-22

Review 4.  Measurement of breast density with digital breast tomosynthesis--a systematic review.

Authors:  E U Ekpo; M F McEntee
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2014-08-22       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Generalized breast density metrics.

Authors:  Erin E E Fowler; Autumn Smallwood; Cassandra Miltich; Jennifer Drukteinis; Thomas A Sellers; John Heine
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2018-12-19       Impact factor: 3.609

6.  Spatial Correlation and Breast Cancer Risk.

Authors:  Erin E E Fowler; Cassandra Hathaway; Fabryann Tillman; Robert Weinfurtner; Thomas A Sellers; John Heine
Journal:  Biomed Phys Eng Express       Date:  2019-05-22

7.  Calibrated Breast Density Measurements.

Authors:  Erin E Fowler; Autumn Smallwood; Nadia Khan; Cassandra Miltich; Jennifer Drukteinis; Thomas A Sellers; John Heine
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2018-12-10       Impact factor: 3.173

8.  Full field digital mammography and breast density: comparison of calibrated and noncalibrated measurements.

Authors:  John J Heine; Erin E E Fowler; Chris I Flowers
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 3.173

9.  Empirically-derived synthetic populations to mitigate small sample sizes.

Authors:  Erin E Fowler; Anders Berglund; Michael J Schell; Thomas A Sellers; Steven Eschrich; John Heine
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2020-03-12       Impact factor: 6.317

10.  Automated Percentage of Breast Density Measurements for Full-field Digital Mammography Applications.

Authors:  Erin E E Fowler; Celine M Vachon; Christopher G Scott; Thomas A Sellers; John J Heine
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 3.173

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.