Literature DB >> 23298122

Breast density measurements with ultrasound tomography: a comparison with film and digital mammography.

Neb Duric1, Norman Boyd, Peter Littrup, Mark Sak, Lukasz Myc, Cuiping Li, Erik West, Sal Minkin, Lisa Martin, Martin Yaffe, Steven Schmidt, Muhammad Faiz, Jason Shen, Olga Melnichouk, Qing Li, Teri Albrecht.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To investigate the use of the whole-breast sound speed measurement as a marker of breast density (BD), a known risk factor for breast cancer.
METHODS: As part of an ongoing study of breast cancer detection, 249 patients were scanned with a clinical prototype that operates on the principles of ultrasound tomography. Typically, 40-100 sound speed tomograms were reconstructed from the scan data, corresponding to the entire volume of the breast of each patient. The data were used to estimate the volume averaged sound speed (VASS) of the breast for each patient. The corresponding mammograms were used to calculate mammographic percent density (MPD) using CUMULUS software. Film mammograms were available for 164 patients while 85 digital mammograms were available for the remaining patients. Standard statistical techniques were used to determine associations of breast sound speed with a variety of mammographic measures such as percent density, area of dense tissue, and area of nondense tissue. Furthermore, associations of breast sound speed with continuous variables such as age and weight and dichotomous variables such as parity and menopausal status were also assessed.
RESULTS: VASS was found to be significantly associated with MPD. The Spearman correlation coefficient (r(s)) between VASS and MPD was found to be 0.77 and 0.71 for film and digital mammography, respectively. VASS was positively correlated with dense areas by mammography, both digital (r(s) = 0.46) and film (r(s) = 0.56). VASS was negatively associated with nondense area by mammography, both digital (r(s) = -0.58) and film (r(s) = -0.63). BD by all methods was less in postmenopausal than in premenopausal women. The MPD was lower in the postmenopausal group (by 6.6%, p < 0.08, for the digital group and 7.73%, p < 0.007, for the film group). The VASS was also lower in the postmenopausal group (by 15 m∕s, p < 0.001 for the digital group and 8 m∕s, p < 0.08, for the film group). The association of MPD with age was characterized with r(s) = -0.06 (p < 0.6) for digital mammography and r(s) = -0.53 (p < 0.002) for film mammography. For weight, the MPD associations were characterized by r(s) = -0.53 (p < 0.0001) for digital mammography and -0.38 (p < 0.0001) for film mammography. The association of VASS with age was r(s) = -0.33 (p < 0.002) for the digital group and -0.17 (p < 0.03) for the film group. For weight, the relationship was characterized with r(s) = -0.45 (p < 0.001) for the digital group and -0.37 (p < 0.0001) for the film group.
CONCLUSIONS: The association between VASS and MPD is strong for both film and digital mammography, suggesting that VASS is a viable measure of breast density. This result sets the stage for future work that will focus on directly testing the association of VASS with breast cancer risk.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23298122      PMCID: PMC3548830          DOI: 10.1118/1.4772057

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


  31 in total

1.  The quantitative analysis of mammographic densities.

Authors:  J W Byng; N F Boyd; E Fishell; R A Jong; M J Yaffe
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  1994-10       Impact factor: 3.609

2.  Relationship between mammographic and histological risk factors for breast cancer.

Authors:  N F Boyd; H M Jensen; G Cooke; H L Han
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1992-08-05       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Magnetic resonance properties of ex vivo breast tissue at 1.5 T.

Authors:  S J Graham; S Ness; B S Hamilton; M J Bronskill
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 4.668

4.  Tamoxifen-induced reduction in mammographic density and breast cancer risk reduction: a nested case-control study.

Authors:  Jack Cuzick; Jane Warwick; Elizabeth Pinney; Stephen W Duffy; Simon Cawthorn; Anthony Howell; John F Forbes; Ruth M L Warren
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2011-04-11       Impact factor: 13.506

5.  Direct measurement of sound velocity in various specimens of breast tissue.

Authors:  W Weiwad; A Heinig; L Goetz; H Hartmann; D Lampe; J Buchmann; R Millner; R P Spielmann; S H Heywang-Koebrunner
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 6.016

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.  X-ray characterisation of normal and neoplastic breast tissues.

Authors:  P C Johns; M J Yaffe
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  1987-06       Impact factor: 3.609

8.  Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually.

Authors:  M H Gail; L A Brinton; D P Byar; D K Corle; S B Green; C Schairer; J J Mulvihill
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1989-12-20       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  Effects of estrogen and estrogen-progestin on mammographic parenchymal density. Postmenopausal Estrogen/Progestin Interventions (PEPI) Investigators.

Authors:  G A Greendale; B A Reboussin; A Sie; H R Singh; L K Olson; O Gatewood; L W Bassett; C Wasilauskas; T Bush; E Barrett-Connor
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1999-02-16       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  Variability and accuracy in mammographic interpretation using the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System.

Authors:  K Kerlikowske; D Grady; J Barclay; S D Frankel; S H Ominsky; E A Sickles; V Ernster
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1998-12-02       Impact factor: 13.506

View more
  23 in total

1.  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

2.  3D Supine Automated Ultrasound (SAUS, ABUS, ABVS) for Supplemental Screening Women with Dense Breasts.

Authors:  Alexander Mundinger
Journal:  J Breast Health       Date:  2016-04-01

Review 3.  Thermometry and ablation monitoring with ultrasound.

Authors:  Matthew A Lewis; Robert M Staruch; Rajiv Chopra
Journal:  Int J Hyperthermia       Date:  2015-03-10       Impact factor: 3.914

4.  Using ultrasound tomography to identify the distributions of density throughout the breast.

Authors:  Mark Sak; Neb Duric; Peter Littrup; Mark E Sherman; Gretchen L Gierach
Journal:  Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng       Date:  2016-04

5.  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

6.  Breast-density assessment with hand-held ultrasound: A novel biomarker to assess breast cancer risk and to tailor screening?

Authors:  Sergio J Sanabria; Orcun Goksel; Katharina Martini; Serafino Forte; Thomas Frauenfelder; Rahel A Kubik-Huch; Marga B Rominger
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-03-19       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Determinants of the reliability of ultrasound tomography sound speed estimates as a surrogate for volumetric breast density.

Authors:  Zeina G Khodr; Mark A Sak; Ruth M Pfeiffer; Nebojsa Duric; Peter Littrup; Lisa Bey-Knight; Haythem Ali; Patricia Vallieres; Mark E Sherman; Gretchen L Gierach
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  Ultrasound tomography imaging with waveform sound speed: Parenchymal changes in women undergoing tamoxifen therapy.

Authors:  Mark Sak; Neb Duric; Peter Littrup; Mark Sherman; Gretchen Gierach
Journal:  Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng       Date:  2017-03

Review 9.  Review of quantitative multiscale imaging of breast cancer.

Authors:  Michael A Pinkert; Lonie R Salkowski; Patricia J Keely; Timothy J Hall; Walter F Block; Kevin W Eliceiri
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2018-01-22

10.  Using Speed of Sound Imaging to Characterize Breast Density.

Authors:  Mark Sak; Neb Duric; Peter Littrup; Lisa Bey-Knight; Haythem Ali; Patricia Vallieres; Mark E Sherman; Gretchen L Gierach
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2016-09-29       Impact factor: 2.998

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.