Literature DB >> 23338763

Comparative estimation of percentage breast tissue density for digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, and magnetic resonance imaging.

Alberto Tagliafico1, Giulio Tagliafico, Davide Astengo, Sonia Airaldi, Massimo Calabrese, Nehmat Houssami.   

Abstract

Given the increasingly important role of breast density as an independent risk factor for breast cancer, and the variable breast imaging tests that potentially provide measures for density. We compared breast tissue density on digital mammography (FFDM), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) using semi-automated automated software. These three imaging modalities have not been previously directly compared for estimating breast tissue density. Following informed consent from all participating women, FFDM, DBT, and MRI were performed. Breast percentage density was calculated with semi-automated software, and compared, for all three imaging modalities. 48 patients (mean age, 41 years; range, 35-67 years) underwent FFDM, DBT, and MRI. Percent FFDM, DBT, and MRI breast density measures showed a positive linear correlation, (r = 0.95 for MRI and DBT, P < 0.0001; r = 0.97, P < 0.0001 for FFDM and DBT; r = 0.87 for FFDM and MRI). Linear regression analysis related to MRI and DBT had a high r (2) = 0.89 (95 % CI = 0.88-0.99, P < 0.001). FFDM overestimated breast density in 15.1 % in comparison to DBT and in 16.2 % in comparison to MRI, or conversely each of DBT and MRI underestimated density (relative to FFDM) by 15.1 or 16.2 %, respectively. Differences in percentage breast density between FFDM and DBT, and between FFDM and MRI, were highly significant (P < 0.0001). Differences in percentage breast density between DBT and MRI were not significant (P > 0.05). Breast density measures using FFDM, DBT, or MRI were generally well-correlated, although differences were noted between estimates when comparing FFDM and DBT, and for estimates comparing FFDM and MRI. No signficant differences in percentage density were observed when comparing DBT and MRI. Our work highlight that differences between FFDM, DBT, and MRI should be considered when measuring percentage breast density.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23338763     DOI: 10.1007/s10549-013-2419-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat        ISSN: 0167-6806            Impact factor:   4.872


  22 in total

1.  Quantitative evaluation of background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) on breast MRI. A feasibility study with a semi-automatic and automatic software compared to observer-based scores.

Authors:  Alberto Tagliafico; Bianca Bignotti; Giulio Tagliafico; Simona Tosto; Alessio Signori; Massimo Calabrese
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2015-10-14       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Fully Automated Quantitative Estimation of Volumetric Breast Density from Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Images: Preliminary Results and Comparison with Digital Mammography and MR Imaging.

Authors:  Said Pertuz; Elizabeth S McDonald; Susan P Weinstein; Emily F Conant; Despina Kontos
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2015-10-21       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Estimation of percentage breast tissue density: comparison between digital mammography (2D full field digital mammography) and digital breast tomosynthesis according to different BI-RADS categories.

Authors:  A S Tagliafico; G Tagliafico; F Cavagnetto; M Calabrese; N Houssami
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2013-09-12       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  Differences in breast density assessment using mammography, tomosynthesis and MRI and their implications for practice.

Authors:  A Tagliafico; G Tagliafico; N Houssami
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2013-10-28       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Postmortem validation of breast density using dual-energy mammography.

Authors:  Sabee Molloi; Justin L Ducote; Huanjun Ding; Stephen A Feig
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 6.  Mammographic density is not a worthwhile examination to distinguish high cancer risk women in screening.

Authors:  Catherine Colin; Anne-Marie Schott; Pierre-Jean Valette
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-06-28       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 7.  Measurement of breast density with digital breast tomosynthesis--a systematic review.

Authors:  E U Ekpo; M F McEntee
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2014-08-22       Impact factor: 3.039

8.  Volumetric breast density measurement: sensitivity analysis of a relative physics approach.

Authors:  Susie Lau; Kwan Hoong Ng; Yang Faridah Abdul Aziz
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-07-25       Impact factor: 3.039

9.  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

10.  Quantitative Volumetric K-Means Cluster Segmentation of Fibroglandular Tissue and Skin in Breast MRI.

Authors:  Anton Niukkanen; Otso Arponen; Aki Nykänen; Amro Masarwah; Anna Sutela; Timo Liimatainen; Ritva Vanninen; Mazen Sudah
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 4.056

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.