Literature DB >> 24320473

Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) breast composition descriptors: automated measurement development for full field digital mammography.

E E Fowler1, T A Sellers, B Lu, J J Heine.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) breast composition descriptors are used for standardized mammographic reporting and are assessed visually. This reporting is clinically relevant because breast composition can impact mammographic sensitivity and is a breast cancer risk factor. New techniques are presented and evaluated for generating automated BI-RADS breast composition descriptors using both raw and calibrated full field digital mammography (FFDM) image data.
METHODS: A matched case-control dataset with FFDM images was used to develop three automated measures for the BI-RADS breast composition descriptors. Histograms of each calibrated mammogram in the percent glandular (pg) representation were processed to create the new BR(pg) measure. Two previously validated measures of breast density derived from calibrated and raw mammograms were converted to the new BR(vc) and BR(vr) measures, respectively. These three measures were compared with the radiologist-reported BI-RADS compositions assessments from the patient records. The authors used two optimization strategies with differential evolution to create these measures: method-1 used breast cancer status; and method-2 matched the reported BI-RADS descriptors. Weighted kappa (κ) analysis was used to assess the agreement between the new measures and the reported measures. Each measure's association with breast cancer was evaluated with odds ratios (ORs) adjusted for body mass index, breast area, and menopausal status. ORs were estimated as per unit increase with 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS: The three BI-RADS measures generated by method-1 had κ between 0.25-0.34. These measures were significantly associated with breast cancer status in the adjusted models: (a) OR = 1.87 (1.34, 2.59) for BR(pg); (b) OR = 1.93 (1.36, 2.74) for BR(vc); and (c) OR = 1.37 (1.05, 1.80) for BR(vr). The measures generated by method-2 had κ between 0.42-0.45. Two of these measures were significantly associated with breast cancer status in the adjusted models: (a) OR = 1.95 (1.24, 3.09) for BR(pg); (b) OR = 1.42 (0.87, 2.32) for BR(vc); and (c) OR = 2.13 (1.22, 3.72) for BR(vr). The radiologist-reported measures from the patient records showed a similar association, OR = 1.49 (0.99, 2.24), although only borderline statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS: A general framework was developed and validated for converting calibrated mammograms and continuous measures of breast density to fully automated approximations for the BI-RADS breast composition descriptors. The techniques are general and suitable for a broad range of clinical and research applications.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24320473      PMCID: PMC3820635          DOI: 10.1118/1.4824319

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


  24 in total

1.  A first evaluation of breast radiological density assessment by QUANTRA software as compared to visual classification.

Authors:  Stefano Ciatto; Daniela Bernardi; Massimo Calabrese; Manuela Durando; Maria Adalgisa Gentilini; Giovanna Mariscotti; Francesco Monetti; Enrica Moriconi; Barbara Pesce; Antonella Roselli; Carmen Stevanin; Margherita Tapparelli; Nehmat Houssami
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2012-01-27       Impact factor: 4.380

2.  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

3.  Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations.

Authors:  J M Lewin; R E Hendrick; C J D'Orsi; P K Isaacs; L J Moss; A Karellas; G A Sisney; C C Kuni; G R Cutter
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Volume of mammographic density and risk of breast cancer.

Authors:  John A Shepherd; Karla Kerlikowske; Lin Ma; Frederick Duewer; Bo Fan; Jeff Wang; Serghei Malkov; Eric Vittinghoff; Steven R Cummings
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2011-05-24       Impact factor: 4.254

5.  Calibrated measures for breast density estimation.

Authors:  John J Heine; Ke Cao; Dana E Rollison
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2011-03-02       Impact factor: 3.173

6.  An automated approach for estimation of breast density.

Authors:  John J Heine; Michael J Carston; Christopher G Scott; Kathleen R Brandt; Fang-Fang Wu; Vernon Shane Pankratz; Thomas A Sellers; Celine M Vachon
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 4.254

7.  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

8.  Breast composition measurements using retrospective standard mammogram form (SMF).

Authors:  R Highnam; X Pan; R Warren; M Jeffreys; G Davey Smith; M Brady
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2006-05-09       Impact factor: 3.609

9.  Density is in the eye of the beholder: visual versus semi-automated assessment of breast density on standard mammograms.

Authors:  M B I Lobbes; J P M Cleutjens; V Lima Passos; C Frotscher; M J Lahaye; K B M I Keymeulen; R G Beets-Tan; J Wildberger; C Boetes
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2011-11-20

10.  Effective x-ray attenuation coefficient measurements from two full field digital mammography systems for data calibration applications.

Authors:  John J Heine; Jerry A Thomas
Journal:  Biomed Eng Online       Date:  2008-03-28       Impact factor: 2.819

View more
  6 in total

1.  Calibrated Breast Density Measurements.

Authors:  Erin E Fowler; Autumn Smallwood; Nadia Khan; Cassandra Miltich; Jennifer Drukteinis; Thomas A Sellers; John Heine
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2018-12-10       Impact factor: 3.173

2.  Empirically-derived synthetic populations to mitigate small sample sizes.

Authors:  Erin E Fowler; Anders Berglund; Michael J Schell; Thomas A Sellers; Steven Eschrich; John Heine
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2020-03-12       Impact factor: 6.317

3.  Automated Percentage of Breast Density Measurements for Full-field Digital Mammography Applications.

Authors:  Erin E E Fowler; Celine M Vachon; Christopher G Scott; Thomas A Sellers; John J Heine
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 3.173

4.  Technical challenges in generalizing calibration techniques for breast density measurements.

Authors:  Erin E E Fowler; Autumn M Smallwood; Nadia Z Khan; Kaitlyn Kilpatrick; Thomas A Sellers; John Heine
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2019-01-11       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Use of ultrasound combined with magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosis of breast masses and fibroids.

Authors:  Wei Xiang; Zihui Huang; Chenhu Tang; Bo Shen; Qun Yu; Xiaohong Niu; Fanrong Meng
Journal:  J Int Med Res       Date:  2019-06-02       Impact factor: 1.671

6.  Mammographic Variation Measures, Breast Density, and Breast Cancer Risk.

Authors:  John Heine; Erin Fowler; Christopher G Scott; Matthew R Jensen; John Shepherd; Carrie B Hruska; Stacey J Winham; Kathleen R Brandt; Fang F Wu; Aaron D Norman; Vernon S Pankratz; Diana L Miglioretti; Karla Kerlikowske; Celine M Vachon
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2021-06-23       Impact factor: 6.582

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.