PURPOSE: Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) plays an important role in the clinical management of breast cancer. Computerized analysis is increasingly used to quantify breast MRI features in applications such as computer-aided lesion detection and fibroglandular tissue estimation for breast cancer risk assessment. Automated segmentation of the whole-breast as an organ from the other parts imaged is an important step in aiding lesion localization and fibroglandular tissue quantification. For this task, identifying the chest wall line (CWL) is most challenging due to image contrast variations, intensity discontinuity, and bias field. METHODS: In this work, the authors develop and validate a fully automated image processing algorithm for accurate delineation of the CWL in sagittal breast MRI. The CWL detection is based on an integrated scheme of edge extraction and CWL candidate evaluation. The edge extraction consists of applying edge-enhancing filters and an edge linking algorithm. Increased accuracy is achieved by the synergistic use of multiple image inputs for edge extraction, where multiple CWL candidates are evaluated by the dynamic time warping algorithm coupled with the construction of a CWL reference. Their method is quantitatively validated by a dataset of 60 3D bilateral sagittal breast MRI scans (in total 3360 2D MR slices) that span the full American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) breast density range. Agreement with manual segmentation obtained by an experienced breast imaging radiologist is assessed by both volumetric and boundary-based metrics, including four quantitative measures. RESULTS: In terms of breast volume agreement with manual segmentation, the overlay percentage expressed by the Dice's similarity coefficient is 95.0% and the difference percentage is 10.1%. More specifically, for the segmentation accuracy of the CWL boundary, the CWL overlay percentage is 92.7% and averaged deviation distance is 2.3 mm. Their method requires ≈ 4.5 min for segmenting each 3D breast MRI scan (56 slices) in comparison to ≈ 35 min required for manual segmentation. Further analysis indicates that the segmentation performance of their method is relatively stable across the different BI-RADS density categories and breast volume, and also robust with respect to a varying range of the major parameters of the algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: Their fully automated method achieves high segmentation accuracy in a time-efficient manner. It could support large scale quantitative breast MRI analysis and holds the potential to become integrated into the clinical workflow for breast cancer clinical applications in the future.
PURPOSE: Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) plays an important role in the clinical management of breast cancer. Computerized analysis is increasingly used to quantify breast MRI features in applications such as computer-aided lesion detection and fibroglandular tissue estimation for breast cancer risk assessment. Automated segmentation of the whole-breast as an organ from the other parts imaged is an important step in aiding lesion localization and fibroglandular tissue quantification. For this task, identifying the chest wall line (CWL) is most challenging due to image contrast variations, intensity discontinuity, and bias field. METHODS: In this work, the authors develop and validate a fully automated image processing algorithm for accurate delineation of the CWL in sagittal breast MRI. The CWL detection is based on an integrated scheme of edge extraction and CWL candidate evaluation. The edge extraction consists of applying edge-enhancing filters and an edge linking algorithm. Increased accuracy is achieved by the synergistic use of multiple image inputs for edge extraction, where multiple CWL candidates are evaluated by the dynamic time warping algorithm coupled with the construction of a CWL reference. Their method is quantitatively validated by a dataset of 60 3D bilateral sagittal breast MRI scans (in total 3360 2D MR slices) that span the full American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) breast density range. Agreement with manual segmentation obtained by an experienced breast imaging radiologist is assessed by both volumetric and boundary-based metrics, including four quantitative measures. RESULTS: In terms of breast volume agreement with manual segmentation, the overlay percentage expressed by the Dice's similarity coefficient is 95.0% and the difference percentage is 10.1%. More specifically, for the segmentation accuracy of the CWL boundary, the CWL overlay percentage is 92.7% and averaged deviation distance is 2.3 mm. Their method requires ≈ 4.5 min for segmenting each 3D breast MRI scan (56 slices) in comparison to ≈ 35 min required for manual segmentation. Further analysis indicates that the segmentation performance of their method is relatively stable across the different BI-RADS density categories and breast volume, and also robust with respect to a varying range of the major parameters of the algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: Their fully automated method achieves high segmentation accuracy in a time-efficient manner. It could support large scale quantitative breast MRI analysis and holds the potential to become integrated into the clinical workflow for breast cancer clinical applications in the future.
Authors: Savannah C Partridge; Jessica E Gibbs; Ying Lu; Laura J Esserman; Debasish Tripathy; Dulcy S Wolverton; Hope S Rugo; E Shelley Hwang; Cheryl A Ewing; Nola M Hylton Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 3.959
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: Susan P Weinstein; A Russell Localio; Emily F Conant; Mark Rosen; Kathleen M Thomas; Mitchell D Schnall Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-11-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Kathryn H Schmitz; Nancy I Williams; Despina Kontos; Susan Domchek; Knashawn H Morales; Wei-Ting Hwang; Lorita L Grant; Laura DiGiovanni; Domenick Salvatore; Desire' Fenderson; Mitchell Schnall; Mary Lou Galantino; Jill Stopfer; Mindy S Kurzer; Shandong Wu; Jessica Adelman; Justin C Brown; Jerene Good Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2015-10-28 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Yangming Ou; Susan P Weinstein; Emily F Conant; Sarah Englander; Xiao Da; Bilwaj Gaonkar; Meng-Kang Hsieh; Mark Rosen; Angela DeMichele; Christos Davatzikos; Despina Kontos Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2014-07-15 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Geraldine J Liao; Leah C Henze Bancroft; Roberta M Strigel; Rhea D Chitalia; Despina Kontos; Linda Moy; Savannah C Partridge; Habib Rahbar Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2019-04-19 Impact factor: 4.813