Literature DB >> 23044556

Comparison of breast tissue measurements using magnetic resonance imaging, digital mammography and a mathematical algorithm.

Lee-Jane W Lu1, Thomas K Nishino, Raleigh F Johnson, Fatima Nayeem, Donald G Brunder, Hyunsu Ju, Morton H Leonard, James J Grady, Tuenchit Khamapirad.   

Abstract

Women with mostly mammographically dense fibroglandular tissue (breast density, BD) have a four- to six-fold increased risk for breast cancer compared to women with little BD. BD is most frequently estimated from two-dimensional (2D) views of mammograms by a histogram segmentation approach (HSM) and more recently by a mathematical algorithm consisting of mammographic imaging parameters (MATH). Two non-invasive clinical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocols: 3D gradient-echo (3DGRE) and short tau inversion recovery (STIR) were modified for 3D volumetric reconstruction of the breast for measuring fatty and fibroglandular tissue volumes by a Gaussian-distribution curve-fitting algorithm. Replicate breast exams (N = 2 to 7 replicates in six women) by 3DGRE and STIR were highly reproducible for all tissue-volume estimates (coefficients of variation <5%). Reliability studies compared measurements from four methods, 3DGRE, STIR, HSM, and MATH (N = 95 women) by linear regression and intra-class correlation (ICC) analyses. Rsqr, regression slopes, and ICC, respectively, were (1) 0.76-0.86, 0.8-1.1, and 0.87-0.92 for %-gland tissue, (2) 0.72-0.82, 0.64-0.96, and 0.77-0.91, for glandular volume, (3) 0.87-0.98, 0.94-1.07, and 0.89-0.99, for fat volume, and (4) 0.89-0.98, 0.94-1.00, and 0.89-0.98, for total breast volume. For all values estimated, the correlation was stronger for comparisons between the two MRI than between each MRI versus mammography, and between each MRI versus MATH data than between each MRI versus HSM data. All ICC values were >0.75 indicating that all four methods were reliable for measuring BD and that the mathematical algorithm and the two complimentary non-invasive MRI protocols could objectively and reliably estimate different types of breast tissues.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23044556      PMCID: PMC3493153          DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/57/21/6903

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Med Biol        ISSN: 0031-9155            Impact factor:   3.609


  43 in total

1.  Automatic segmentation of mammographic density.

Authors:  R Sivaramakrishna; N A Obuchowski; W A Chilcote; K A Powell
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 3.173

2.  Fat suppression strategies in enhanced MR imaging of the breast: comparison of SPIR and water excitation sequences.

Authors:  Mamoru Niitsu; Eriko Tohno; Yuji Itai
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 4.813

3.  Comparison of various techniques used to estimate spontaneous baroreflex sensitivity (the EuroBaVar study).

Authors:  Dominique Laude; Jean-Luc Elghozi; Arlette Girard; Elisabeth Bellard; Malika Bouhaddi; Paolo Castiglioni; Catherine Cerutti; Andrei Cividjian; Marco Di Rienzo; Jacques-Olivier Fortrat; Ben Janssen; John M Karemaker; Georges Lefthériotis; Gianfranco Parati; Pontus B Persson; Alberto Porta; Luc Quintin; Jacques Regnard; Heinz Rüdiger; Harald M Stauss
Journal:  Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol       Date:  2003-09-18       Impact factor: 3.619

4.  Computing mammographic density from a multiple regression model constructed with image-acquisition parameters from a full-field digital mammographic unit.

Authors:  Lee-Jane W Lu; Thomas K Nishino; Tuenchit Khamapirad; James J Grady; Morton H Leonard; Donald G Brunder
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2007-07-30       Impact factor: 3.609

5.  Partial-volume Bayesian classification of material mixtures in MR volume data using voxel histograms.

Authors:  D H Laidlaw; K W Fleischer; A H Barr
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 10.048

6.  Screening women at high risk for breast cancer with mammography and magnetic resonance imaging.

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

Review 7.  Mammographic breast density as an intermediate phenotype for breast cancer.

Authors:  Norman F Boyd; Johanna M Rommens; Kelly Vogt; Vivian Lee; John L Hopper; Martin J Yaffe; Andrew D Paterson
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 41.316

8.  Breast MRI: early experience with a 3-D fat-suppressed gradient echo sequence in the evaluation of breast lesions.

Authors:  A Holden; J E Anderson; F J Ives; D Taylor; E J Wylie; R Adamson
Journal:  Australas Radiol       Date:  1996-11

9.  A pilot study of compositional analysis of the breast and estimation of breast mammographic density using three-dimensional T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging.

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

10.  Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition.

Authors:  Mieke Kriege; Cecile T M Brekelmans; Carla Boetes; Peter E Besnard; Harmine M Zonderland; Inge Marie Obdeijn; Radu A Manoliu; Theo Kok; Hans Peterse; Madeleine M A Tilanus-Linthorst; Sara H Muller; Sybren Meijer; Jan C Oosterwijk; Louk V A M Beex; Rob A E M Tollenaar; Harry J de Koning; Emiel J T Rutgers; Jan G M Klijn
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2004-07-29       Impact factor: 91.245

View more
  7 in total

1.  Automated fibroglandular tissue segmentation and volumetric density estimation in breast MRI using an atlas-aided fuzzy C-means method.

Authors:  Shandong Wu; Susan P Weinstein; Emily F Conant; Despina Kontos
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  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

3.  Proton density water fraction as a reproducible MR-based measurement of breast density.

Authors:  Leah C Henze Bancroft; Roberta M Strigel; Erin B Macdonald; Colin Longhurst; Jacob Johnson; Diego Hernando; Scott B Reeder
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2021-11-14       Impact factor: 4.668

4.  Similarity of fibroglandular breast tissue content measured from magnetic resonance and mammographic images and by a mathematical algorithm.

Authors:  Fatima Nayeem; Hyunsu Ju; Donald G Brunder; Manubai Nagamani; Karl E Anderson; Tuenchit Khamapirad; Lee-Jane W Lu
Journal:  Int J Breast Cancer       Date:  2014-07-15

5.  Automatic and fast segmentation of breast region-of-interest (ROI) and density in MRIs.

Authors:  Dinesh Pandey; Xiaoxia Yin; Hua Wang; Min-Ying Su; Jeon-Hor Chen; Jianlin Wu; Yanchun Zhang
Journal:  Heliyon       Date:  2018-12-17

6.  Breast density assessment using a 3T MRI system: comparison among different sequences.

Authors:  Alberto Tagliafico; Bianca Bignotti; Giulio Tagliafico; Davide Astengo; Lucia Martino; Sonia Airaldi; Alessio Signori; Maria Pia Sormani; Nehmat Houssami; Massimo Calabrese
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-06-03       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Comparison of Dixon Sequences for Estimation of Percent Breast Fibroglandular Tissue.

Authors:  Araminta E W Ledger; Erica D Scurr; Julie Hughes; Alison Macdonald; Toni Wallace; Karen Thomas; Robin Wilson; Martin O Leach; Maria A Schmidt
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-03-24       Impact factor: 3.240

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.