Muqing Lin1, Jeon-Hor Chen, Xiaoyong Wang, Siwa Chan, Siping Chen, Min-Ying Su. 1. Tu & Yuen Center for Functional Onco-Imaging, Department of Radiological Sciences, University of California, Irvine, California 92697-5020 and National-Regional Key Technology Engineering Laboratory for Medical Ultrasound, Guangdong Key Laboratory for Biomedical Measurements and Ultrasound Imaging, Department of Biomedical Engineering, School of Medicine, Shenzhen University, 518060 China.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Methods for quantification of breast density on MRI using semiautomatic approaches are commonly used. In this study, the authors report on a fully automatic chest template-based method. METHODS: Nonfat-suppressed breast MR images from 31 healthy women were analyzed. Among them, one case was randomly selected and used as the template, and the remaining 30 cases were used for testing. Unlike most model-based breast segmentation methods that use the breast region as the template, the chest body region on a middle slice was used as the template. Within the chest template, three body landmarks (thoracic spine and bilateral boundary of the pectoral muscle) were identified for performing the initial V-shape cut to determine the posterior lateral boundary of the breast. The chest template was mapped to each subject's image space to obtain a subject-specific chest model for exclusion. On the remaining image, the chest wall muscle was identified and excluded to obtain clean breast segmentation. The chest and muscle boundaries determined on the middle slice were used as the reference for the segmentation of adjacent slices, and the process continued superiorly and inferiorly until all 3D slices were segmented. The segmentation results were evaluated by an experienced radiologist to mark voxels that were wrongly included or excluded for error analysis. RESULTS: The breast volumes measured by the proposed algorithm were very close to the radiologist's corrected volumes, showing a % difference ranging from 0.01% to 3.04% in 30 tested subjects with a mean of 0.86% ± 0.72%. The total error was calculated by adding the inclusion and the exclusion errors (so they did not cancel each other out), which ranged from 0.05% to 6.75% with a mean of 3.05% ± 1.93%. The fibroglandular tissue segmented within the breast region determined by the algorithm and the radiologist were also very close, showing a % difference ranging from 0.02% to 2.52% with a mean of 1.03% ± 1.03%. The total error by adding the inclusion and exclusion errors ranged from 0.16% to 11.8%, with a mean of 2.89% ± 2.55%. CONCLUSIONS: The automatic chest template-based breast MRI segmentation method worked well for cases with different body and breast shapes and different density patterns. Compared to the radiologist-established truth, the mean difference in segmented breast volume was approximately 1%, and the total error by considering the additive inclusion and exclusion errors was approximately 3%. This method may provide a reliable tool for MRI-based segmentation of breast density.
PURPOSE: Methods for quantification of breast density on MRI using semiautomatic approaches are commonly used. In this study, the authors report on a fully automatic chest template-based method. METHODS: Nonfat-suppressed breast MR images from 31 healthy women were analyzed. Among them, one case was randomly selected and used as the template, and the remaining 30 cases were used for testing. Unlike most model-based breast segmentation methods that use the breast region as the template, the chest body region on a middle slice was used as the template. Within the chest template, three body landmarks (thoracic spine and bilateral boundary of the pectoral muscle) were identified for performing the initial V-shape cut to determine the posterior lateral boundary of the breast. The chest template was mapped to each subject's image space to obtain a subject-specific chest model for exclusion. On the remaining image, the chest wall muscle was identified and excluded to obtain clean breast segmentation. The chest and muscle boundaries determined on the middle slice were used as the reference for the segmentation of adjacent slices, and the process continued superiorly and inferiorly until all 3D slices were segmented. The segmentation results were evaluated by an experienced radiologist to mark voxels that were wrongly included or excluded for error analysis. RESULTS: The breast volumes measured by the proposed algorithm were very close to the radiologist's corrected volumes, showing a % difference ranging from 0.01% to 3.04% in 30 tested subjects with a mean of 0.86% ± 0.72%. The total error was calculated by adding the inclusion and the exclusion errors (so they did not cancel each other out), which ranged from 0.05% to 6.75% with a mean of 3.05% ± 1.93%. The fibroglandular tissue segmented within the breast region determined by the algorithm and the radiologist were also very close, showing a % difference ranging from 0.02% to 2.52% with a mean of 1.03% ± 1.03%. The total error by adding the inclusion and exclusion errors ranged from 0.16% to 11.8%, with a mean of 2.89% ± 2.55%. CONCLUSIONS: The automatic chest template-based breast MRI segmentation method worked well for cases with different body and breast shapes and different density patterns. Compared to the radiologist-established truth, the mean difference in segmented breast volume was approximately 1%, and the total error by considering the additive inclusion and exclusion errors was approximately 3%. This method may provide a reliable tool for MRI-based segmentation of breast density.
Authors: Daniel H-E Chang; Jeon-Hor Chen; Muqing Lin; Shadfar Bahri; Hon J Yu; Rita S Mehta; Ke Nie; David J B Hsiang; Orhan Nalcioglu; Min-Ying Su Journal: Med Phys Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Norman F Boyd; Helen Guo; Lisa J Martin; Limei Sun; Jennifer Stone; Eve Fishell; Roberta A Jong; Greg Hislop; Anna Chiarelli; Salomon Minkin; Martin J Yaffe Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-01-18 Impact factor: 91.245
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: Valerie K Reed; Wendy A Woodward; Lifei Zhang; Eric A Strom; George H Perkins; Welela Tereffe; Julia L Oh; T Kuan Yu; Isabelle Bedrosian; Gary J Whitman; Thomas A Buchholz; Lei Dong Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-09-17 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Ke Nie; Daniel Chang; Jeon-Hor Chen; Tzu-Ching Shih; Chieh-Chih Hsu; Orhan Nalcioglu; Min-Ying Su Journal: Med Phys Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Michael Khazen; Ruth M L Warren; Caroline R M Boggis; Emilie C Bryant; Sadie Reed; Iqbal Warsi; Linda J Pointon; Gek E Kwan-Lim; Deborah Thompson; Ros Eeles; Doug Easton; D Gareth Evans; Martin O Leach Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Anna H Wu; Darcy Spicer; Agustin Garcia; Chiu-Chen Tseng; Linda Hovanessian-Larsen; Pulin Sheth; Sue Ellen Martin; Debra Hawes; Christy Russell; Heather MacDonald; Debu Tripathy; Min-Ying Su; Giske Ursin; Malcolm C Pike Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2015-08-14
Authors: Leon Lenchik; Laura Heacock; Ashley A Weaver; Robert D Boutin; Tessa S Cook; Jason Itri; Christopher G Filippi; Rao P Gullapalli; James Lee; Marianna Zagurovskaya; Tara Retson; Kendra Godwin; Joey Nicholson; Ponnada A Narayana Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2019-08-10 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Jie Ding; Alison T Stopeck; Yi Gao; Marilyn T Marron; Betsy C Wertheim; Maria I Altbach; Jean-Philippe Galons; Denise J Roe; Fang Wang; Gertraud Maskarinec; Cynthia A Thomson; Patricia A Thompson; Chuan Huang Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2018-04-06 Impact factor: 4.813