Literature DB >> 23231281

Dedicated breast CT: fibroglandular volume measurements in a diagnostic population.

Srinivasan Vedantham1, Linxi Shi, Andrew Karellas, Avice M O'Connell.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine the mean and range of volumetric glandular fraction (VGF) of the breast in a diagnostic population using a high-resolution flat-panel cone-beam dedicated breast CT system. This information is important for Monte Carlo-based estimation of normalized glandular dose coefficients and for investigating the dependence of VGF on breast dimensions, race, and pathology.
METHODS: Image data from a clinical trial investigating the role of dedicated breast CT that enrolled 150 women were retrospectively analyzed to determine the VGF. The study was conducted in adherence to a protocol approved by the institutional human subjects review boards and written informed consent was obtained from all study participants. All participants in the study were assigned BI-RADS(®) 4 or 5 as per the American College of Radiology assessment categories after standard diagnostic work-up and underwent dedicated breast CT exam prior to biopsy. A Gaussian-kernel based fuzzy c-means algorithm was used to partition the breast CT images into adipose and fibroglandular tissue after segmenting the skin. Upon determination of the accuracy of the algorithm with a phantom, it was applied to 137 breast CT volumes from 136 women. VGF was determined for each breast and the mean and range were determined. Pathology results with classification as benign, malignant, and hyperplasia were available for 132 women, and were used to investigate if the distributions of VGF varied with pathology.
RESULTS: The algorithm was accurate to within ±1.9% in determining the volume of an irregular shaped phantom. The study mean (± inter-breast SD) for the VGF was 0.172 ± 0.142 (range: 0.012-0.719). VGF was found to be negatively correlated with age, breast dimensions (chest-wall to nipple length, pectoralis to nipple length, and effective diameter at chest-wall), and total breast volume, and positively correlated with fibroglandular volume. Based on pathology, pairwise statistical analysis (Mann-Whitney test) indicated that at the 0.05 significance level, there was no significant difference in distributions of VGF without adjustment for age between malignant and nonmalignant breasts (p = 0.41). Pairwise comparisons of the distributions of VGF in increasing order of mammographic breast density indicated all comparisons were statistically significant (p < 0.002).
CONCLUSIONS: This study used a different clinical prototype breast CT system than that in previous studies to image subjects from a different geographical region, and used a different algorithm for analysis of image data. The mean VGF estimated from this study is within the range reported in previous studies, indicating that the choice of 50% glandular weight fraction to represent an average breast for Monte Carlo-based estimation of normalized glandular dose coefficients in mammography needs revising. In the study, the distributions of VGF did not differ significantly with pathology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23231281      PMCID: PMC3524966          DOI: 10.1118/1.4765050

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  30 in total

1.  Glandular breast dose for monoenergetic and high-energy X-ray beams: Monte Carlo assessment.

Authors:  J M Boone
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Cone-beam CT for breast imaging: Radiation dose, breast coverage, and image quality.

Authors:  Avice O'Connell; David L Conover; Yan Zhang; Posy Seifert; Wende Logan-Young; Chuen-Fu Linda Lin; Lawrence Sahler; Ruola Ning
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  A fuzzy c-means (FCM)-based approach for computerized segmentation of breast lesions in dynamic contrast-enhanced MR images.

Authors:  Weijie Chen; Maryellen L Giger; Ulrich Bick
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 3.173

4.  Automatic detection of brain contours in MRI data sets.

Authors:  M E Brummer; R M Mersereau; R L Eisner; R J Lewine
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 10.048

5.  Classification of breast computed tomography data.

Authors:  Thomas R Nelson; Laura I Cerviño; John M Boone; Karen K Lindfors
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 4.071

6.  The myth of the 50-50 breast.

Authors:  M J Yaffe; J M Boone; N Packard; O Alonzo-Proulx; S Y Huang; C L Peressotti; A Al-Mayah; K Brock
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 4.071

7.  A new method for quantitative analysis of mammographic density.

Authors:  Carri K Glide-Hurst; Neb Duric; Peter Littrup
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  Neurovascular modeling: small-batch manufacturing of silicone vascular replicas.

Authors:  J Y Chueh; A K Wakhloo; M J Gounis
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2009-03-25       Impact factor: 3.825

9.  Volumetric breast density evaluation from ultrasound tomography images.

Authors:  Carri K Glide-Hurst; Neb Duric; Peter Littrup
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 4.071

10.  Mammographic density and breast cancer risk: evaluation of a novel method of measuring breast tissue volumes.

Authors:  Norman Boyd; Lisa Martin; Anoma Gunasekara; Olga Melnichouk; Gord Maudsley; Chris Peressotti; Martin Yaffe; Salomon Minkin
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 4.254

View more
  37 in total

1.  Breast dose in mammography is about 30% lower when realistic heterogeneous glandular distributions are considered.

Authors:  Andrew M Hernandez; J Anthony Seibert; John M Boone
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Three dimensional dose distribution comparison of simple and complex acquisition trajectories in dedicated breast CT.

Authors:  Jainil P Shah; Steve D Mann; Randolph L McKinley; Martin P Tornai
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: State of the Art.

Authors:  Srinivasan Vedantham; Andrew Karellas; Gopal R Vijayaraghavan; Daniel B Kopans
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 4.  Newer Technologies in Breast Cancer Imaging: Dedicated Cone-Beam Breast Computed Tomography.

Authors:  Avice M O'Connell; Andrew Karellas; Srinivasan Vedantham; Daniel T Kawakyu-O'Connor
Journal:  Semin Ultrasound CT MR       Date:  2017-09-05       Impact factor: 1.875

5.  Emerging Breast Imaging Technologies on the Horizon.

Authors:  Srinivasan Vedantham; Andrew Karellas
Journal:  Semin Ultrasound CT MR       Date:  2017-09-13       Impact factor: 1.875

6.  Investigation of x-ray spectra for iodinated contrast-enhanced dedicated breast CT.

Authors:  Stephen J Glick; Andrey Makeev
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2017-01-26

7.  Impact of positional difference on the measurement of breast density using MRI.

Authors:  Jeon-Hor Chen; Siwa Chan; Yi-Ting Tang; Jia Shen Hon; Po-Chuan Tseng; Angela T Cheriyan; Nikita Rakesh Shah; Dah-Cherng Yeh; San-Kan Lee; Wen-Pin Chen; Christine E McLaren; Min-Ying Su
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  Radiation doses in volume-of-interest breast computed tomography--A Monte Carlo simulation study.

Authors:  Chao-Jen Lai; Yuncheng Zhong; Ying Yi; Tianpeng Wang; Chris C Shaw
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 4.071

9.  Cone-beam breast computed tomography using ultra-fast image reconstruction with constrained, total-variation minimization for suppression of artifacts.

Authors:  Hsin Wu Tseng; Srinivasan Vedantham; Andrew Karellas
Journal:  Phys Med       Date:  2020-04-28       Impact factor: 2.685

10.  Towards standardization of x-ray beam filters in digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis: Monte Carlo simulations and analytical modelling.

Authors:  Suman Shrestha; Srinivasan Vedantham; Andrew Karellas
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2017-01-11       Impact factor: 3.609

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.