Literature DB >> 24029631

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.

A S Tagliafico1, G Tagliafico, F Cavagnetto, M Calabrese, N Houssami.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare breast density estimated from two-dimensional full-field digital mammography (2D FFDM) and from digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) according to different Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) categories, using automated software.
METHODS: Institutional review board approval and written informed patient consent were obtained. DBT and 2D FFDM were performed in the same patients to allow within-patient comparison. A total of 160 consecutive patients (mean age: 50±14 years; mean body mass index: 22±3) were included to create paired data sets of 40 patients for each BI-RADS category. Automatic software (MedDensity(©), developed by Giulio Tagliafico) was used to compare the percentage breast density between DBT and 2D FFDM. The estimated breast percentage density obtained using DBT and 2D FFDM was examined for correlation with the radiologists' visual BI-RADS density classification.
RESULTS: The 2D FFDM differed from DBT by 16.0% in BI-RADS Category 1, by 11.9% in Category 2, by 3.5% in Category 3 and by 18.1% in Category 4. These differences were highly significant (p<0.0001). There was a good correlation between the BI-RADS categories and the density evaluated using 2D FFDM and DBT (r=0.56, p<0.01 and r=0.48, p<0.01, respectively).
CONCLUSION: Using DBT, breast density values were lower than those obtained using 2D FFDM, with a non-linear relationship across the BI-RADS categories. These data are relevant for clinical practice and research studies using density in determining the risk. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: On DBT, breast density values were lower than with 2D FFDM, with a non-linear relationship across the classical BI-RADS categories.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24029631      PMCID: PMC3830430          DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20130255

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Radiol        ISSN: 0007-1285            Impact factor:   3.039


  18 in total

1.  Quantitative assessment of mammographic breast density: relationship with breast cancer risk.

Authors:  Jennifer A Harvey; Viktor E Bovbjerg
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2003-11-14       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Multicenter comparative multimodality surveillance of women at genetic-familial high risk for breast cancer (HIBCRIT study): interim results.

Authors:  Francesco Sardanelli; Franca Podo; Giuliano D'Agnolo; Arduino Verdecchia; Mariano Santaquilani; Renato Musumeci; Giovanna Trecate; Siranoush Manoukian; Sandro Morassut; Clelia de Giacomi; Massimo Federico; Laura Cortesi; Stefano Corcione; Stefano Cirillo; Vincenzo Marra; Anna Cilotti; Cosimo Di Maggio; Alfonso Fausto; Lorenzo Preda; Chiara Zuiani; Alma Contegiacomo; Antonio Orlacchio; Massimo Calabrese; Lorenzo Bonomo; Ernesto Di Cesare; Maura Tonutti; Pietro Panizza; Alessandro Del Maschio
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2007-01-23       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  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

4.  The Tabár classification of mammographic parenchymal patterns.

Authors:  I T Gram; E Funkhouser; L Tabár
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 3.528

5.  Insulin-like growth factor-I, IGF-binding protein-3, and mammographic breast density.

Authors:  Caroline Diorio; Michael Pollak; Celia Byrne; Benoît Mâsse; Nicole Hébert-Croteau; Martin Yaffe; Gary Coté; Sylvie Bérubé; Carol Morin; Jacques Brisson
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 4.254

6.  Quantitative classification of mammographic densities and breast cancer risk: results from the Canadian National Breast Screening Study.

Authors:  N F Boyd; J W Byng; R A Jong; E K Fishell; L E Little; A B Miller; G A Lockwood; D L Tritchler; M J Yaffe
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1995-05-03       Impact factor: 13.506

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

Authors:  Alberto Tagliafico; Giulio Tagliafico; Davide Astengo; Sonia Airaldi; Massimo Calabrese; Nehmat Houssami
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2013-01-22       Impact factor: 4.872

8.  Percentage density, Wolfe's and Tabár's mammographic patterns: agreement and association with risk factors for breast cancer.

Authors:  Inger T Gram; Yngve Bremnes; Giske Ursin; Gertraud Maskarinec; Nils Bjurstam; Eiliv Lund
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2005-08-25       Impact factor: 6.466

9.  Comparing measurements of breast density.

Authors:  R Highnam; M Jeffreys; V McCormack; R Warren; G Davey Smith; M Brady
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2007-09-14       Impact factor: 3.609

10.  Comparison of percent density from raw and processed full-field digital mammography data.

Authors:  Celine M Vachon; Erin Ee Fowler; Gail Tiffenberg; Christopher G Scott; V Shane Pankratz; Thomas A Sellers; John J Heine
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2013-01-04       Impact factor: 6.466

View more
  12 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.  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

3.  Trends in Clinical Breast Density Assessment From the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

Authors:  B L Sprague; K Kerlikowske; E J A Bowles; G H Rauscher; C I Lee; A N A Tosteson; D L Miglioretti
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2019-06-01       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  Breast density estimation from high spectral and spatial resolution MRI.

Authors:  Hui Li; William A Weiss; Milica Medved; Hiroyuki Abe; Gillian M Newstead; Gregory S Karczmar; Maryellen L Giger
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2016-12-28

Review 5.  A review of the influence of mammographic density on breast cancer clinical and pathological phenotype.

Authors:  Michael S Shawky; Cecilia W Huo; Kara Britt; Erik W Thompson; Michael A Henderson; Andrew Redfern
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2019-06-08       Impact factor: 4.872

6.  Mammographic density: Comparison of visual assessment with fully automatic calculation on a multivendor dataset.

Authors:  Daniela Sacchetto; Lia Morra; Silvano Agliozzo; Daniela Bernardi; Tomas Björklund; Beniamino Brancato; Patrizia Bravetti; Luca A Carbonaro; Loredana Correale; Carmen Fantò; Elisabetta Favettini; Laura Martincich; Luisella Milanesio; Sara Mombelloni; Francesco Monetti; Doralba Morrone; Marco Pellegrini; Barbara Pesce; Antonella Petrillo; Gianni Saguatti; Carmen Stevanin; Rubina M Trimboli; Paola Tuttobene; Marvi Valentini; Vincenzo Marra; Alfonso Frigerio; Alberto Bert; Francesco Sardanelli
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-05-01       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Breast density evaluation using spectral mammography, radiologist reader assessment, and segmentation techniques: a retrospective study based on left and right breast comparison.

Authors:  Sabee Molloi; Huanjun Ding; Stephen Feig
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2015-05-29       Impact factor: 3.173

Review 8.  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

9.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis guided Near Infrared Spectroscopy: Volumetric estimates of fibroglandular fraction and breast density from tomosynthesis reconstructions.

Authors:  Srinivasan Vedantham; Linxi Shi; Kelly E Michaelsen; Venkataramanan Krishnaswamy; Brian W Pogue; Steven P Poplack; Andrew Karellas; Keith D Paulsen
Journal:  Biomed Phys Eng Express       Date:  2015-10-27

10.  A Multisite Study of a Breast Density Deep Learning Model for Full-Field Digital Mammography and Synthetic Mammography.

Authors:  Thomas P Matthews; Sadanand Singh; Brent Mombourquette; Jason Su; Meet P Shah; Stefano Pedemonte; Aaron Long; David Maffit; Jenny Gurney; Rodrigo Morales Hoil; Nikita Ghare; Douglas Smith; Stephen M Moore; Susan C Marks; Richard L Wahl
Journal:  Radiol Artif Intell       Date:  2020-11-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.