OBJECTIVE: To compare breast density on digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis using fully automated software. METHODS: Following institutional approval and written informed consent from all participating women, both digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and full-field digital mammography (FFDM) were obtained. Breast percentage density was calculated with software on DBT and FFDM. RESULTS: Fifty consecutive patients (mean age, 51 years; range, 35-83 years) underwent both FFDM and DBT. Using a method based on the integral curve, breast density showed higher results on FFDM (68.1 ± 12.1 for FFDM and 51.9 ± 6.5 for DBT). FFDM overestimated breast density in 16.2% (P < 0.0001). Using a method based on maximum entropy thresholding, breast density showed higher results on FFDM (68.1 ± 12.1 for FFDM and 51.9 ± 6.5 for DBT). FFDM overestimated breast density in 11.4% (P < 0.0001). There was a good correlation among BI-RADS categories on a four-grade scale and the density evaluated with DBT and FFDM (r = 0.54, P < 0.01 and r = 0.44, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Breast density appeared to be significantly underestimated on digital breast tomosynthesis. KEY POINTS: Breast density is considered to be an independent risk factor for cancer Density can be assessed on full-field digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis Objective automated estimation of breast density eliminates subjectivity Automated estimation is more accurate than BI-RADS quantitative evaluation Breast density may be significantly underestimated on digital breast tomosynthesis.
OBJECTIVE: To compare breast density on digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis using fully automated software. METHODS: Following institutional approval and written informed consent from all participating women, both digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and full-field digital mammography (FFDM) were obtained. Breast percentage density was calculated with software on DBT and FFDM. RESULTS: Fifty consecutive patients (mean age, 51 years; range, 35-83 years) underwent both FFDM and DBT. Using a method based on the integral curve, breast density showed higher results on FFDM (68.1 ± 12.1 for FFDM and 51.9 ± 6.5 for DBT). FFDM overestimated breast density in 16.2% (P < 0.0001). Using a method based on maximum entropy thresholding, breast density showed higher results on FFDM (68.1 ± 12.1 for FFDM and 51.9 ± 6.5 for DBT). FFDM overestimated breast density in 11.4% (P < 0.0001). There was a good correlation among BI-RADS categories on a four-grade scale and the density evaluated with DBT and FFDM (r = 0.54, P < 0.01 and r = 0.44, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Breast density appeared to be significantly underestimated on digital breast tomosynthesis. KEY POINTS: Breast density is considered to be an independent risk factor for cancer Density can be assessed on full-field digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis Objective automated estimation of breast density eliminates subjectivity Automated estimation is more accurate than BI-RADS quantitative evaluation Breast density may be significantly underestimated on digital breast tomosynthesis.
Authors: Alberto Tagliafico; Giulio Tagliafico; Simona Tosto; Fabio Chiesa; Carlo Martinoli; Lorenzo E Derchi; Massimo Calabrese Journal: Breast Date: 2008-11-17 Impact factor: 4.380
Authors: David Gur; Gordon S Abrams; Denise M Chough; Marie A Ganott; Christiane M Hakim; Ronald L Perrin; Grace Y Rathfon; Jules H Sumkin; Margarita L Zuley; Andriy I Bandos Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: L T Niklason; B T Christian; L E Niklason; D B Kopans; D E Castleberry; B H Opsahl-Ong; C E Landberg; P J Slanetz; A A Giardino; R Moore; D Albagli; M C DeJule; P F Fitzgerald; D F Fobare; B W Giambattista; R F Kwasnick; J Liu; S J Lubowski; G E Possin; J F Richotte; C Y Wei; R F Wirth Journal: Radiology Date: 1997-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Francesco Sardanelli; Franca Podo; Giuliano D'Agnolo; Arduino Verdecchia; Mariano Santaquilani; Renato Musumeci; Giovanna Trecate; Siranoush Manoukian; Sandro Morassut; Clelia de Giacomi; Massimo Federico; Laura Cortesi; Stefano Corcione; Stefano Cirillo; Vincenzo Marra; Anna Cilotti; Cosimo Di Maggio; Alfonso Fausto; Lorenzo Preda; Chiara Zuiani; Alma Contegiacomo; Antonio Orlacchio; Massimo Calabrese; Lorenzo Bonomo; Ernesto Di Cesare; Maura Tonutti; Pietro Panizza; Alessandro Del Maschio Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-01-23 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Constance D Lehman; Jeffrey D Blume; Paul Weatherall; David Thickman; Nola Hylton; Ellen Warner; Etta Pisano; Stuart J Schnitt; Constantine Gatsonis; Mitchell Schnall; Gia A DeAngelis; Paul Stomper; Eric L Rosen; Michael O'Loughlin; Steven Harms; David A Bluemke Journal: Cancer Date: 2005-05-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Predrag R Bakic; Ann-Katherine Carton; Despina Kontos; Cuiping Zhang; Andrea B Troxel; Andrew D A Maidment Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-05-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Touseef A Qureshi; Harini Veeraraghavan; Janice S Sung; Jennifer B Kaplan; Jessica Flynn; Emily S Tonorezos; Suzanne L Wolden; Elizabeth A Morris; Kevin C Oeffinger; Malcolm C Pike; Chaya S Moskowitz Journal: J Med Syst Date: 2019-06-22 Impact factor: 4.460
Authors: Srinivasan Vedantham; Linxi Shi; Kelly E Michaelsen; Venkataramanan Krishnaswamy; Brian W Pogue; Steven P Poplack; Andrew Karellas; Keith D Paulsen Journal: Biomed Phys Eng Express Date: 2015-10-27