PURPOSE: To compare the breast volume (BV), fibroglandular tissue volume (FV), and percent density (PD) measured from breast MRI of the same women using four different MR scanners. METHODS: The study was performed in 34 healthy Asian volunteers using two 1.5T (GE and Siemens) and two 3T (GE and Philips) MR scanners. The BV, FV, and PD were measured on nonfat-suppressed T1-weighted images using a comprehensive computer algorithm-based segmentation method. The scanner-to-scanner measurement difference, and the coefficient of variation (CV) among the four scanners were calculated. The measurement variation between two density morphological patterns presenting as the central type and the intermingled type was separately analyzed and compared. RESULTS: All four scanners provided satisfactory image quality allowing for successful completion of the segmentation processes. The measured parameters between each pair of MR scanners were highly correlated, with R(2) ≥ 0.95 for BV, R(2) ≥ 0.99 for FV, and R(2) ≥ 0.97 for PD in all comparisons. The mean percent differences between each pair of scanners were 5.9%-7.8% for BV, 5.3%-6.5% for FV, 4.3%-7.3% for PD; with the overall CV of 5.8% for BV, 4.8% for FV, and 4.9% for PD. The variation of FV was smaller in the central type than in the intermingled type (p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The results showed that the variation of FV and PD measured from four different MR scanners is around 5%, suggesting the parameters measured using different scanners can be used for a combined analysis in a multicenter study.
PURPOSE: To compare the breast volume (BV), fibroglandular tissue volume (FV), and percent density (PD) measured from breast MRI of the same women using four different MR scanners. METHODS: The study was performed in 34 healthy Asian volunteers using two 1.5T (GE and Siemens) and two 3T (GE and Philips) MR scanners. The BV, FV, and PD were measured on nonfat-suppressed T1-weighted images using a comprehensive computer algorithm-based segmentation method. The scanner-to-scanner measurement difference, and the coefficient of variation (CV) among the four scanners were calculated. The measurement variation between two density morphological patterns presenting as the central type and the intermingled type was separately analyzed and compared. RESULTS: All four scanners provided satisfactory image quality allowing for successful completion of the segmentation processes. The measured parameters between each pair of MR scanners were highly correlated, with R(2) ≥ 0.95 for BV, R(2) ≥ 0.99 for FV, and R(2) ≥ 0.97 for PD in all comparisons. The mean percent differences between each pair of scanners were 5.9%-7.8% for BV, 5.3%-6.5% for FV, 4.3%-7.3% for PD; with the overall CV of 5.8% for BV, 4.8% for FV, and 4.9% for PD. The variation of FV was smaller in the central type than in the intermingled type (p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The results showed that the variation of FV and PD measured from four different MR scanners is around 5%, suggesting the parameters measured using different scanners can be used for a combined analysis in a multicenter study.
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: 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: Andrew J Buckler; Linda Bresolin; N Reed Dunnick; Daniel C Sullivan; Hugo J W L Aerts; Bernard Bendriem; Claus Bendtsen; Ronald Boellaard; John M Boone; Patricia E Cole; James J Conklin; Gary S Dorfman; Pamela S Douglas; Willy Eidsaunet; Cathy Elsinger; Richard A Frank; Constantine Gatsonis; Maryellen L Giger; Sandeep N Gupta; David Gustafson; Otto S Hoekstra; Edward F Jackson; Lisa Karam; Gary J Kelloff; Paul E Kinahan; Geoffrey McLennan; Colin G Miller; P David Mozley; Keith E Muller; Rick Patt; David Raunig; Mark Rosen; Haren Rupani; Lawrence H Schwartz; Barry A Siegel; A Gregory Sorensen; Richard L Wahl; John C Waterton; Walter Wolf; Gudrun Zahlmann; Brian Zimmerman Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-02-15 Impact factor: 11.105
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