Zeina G Khodr1, Mark A Sak2, Ruth M Pfeiffer1, Nebojsa Duric3, Peter Littrup3, Lisa Bey-Knight2, Haythem Ali4, Patricia Vallieres4, Mark E Sherman5, Gretchen L Gierach1. 1. Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Drive MSC 9774, Bethesda, Maryland 20892. 2. Karmanos Cancer Institute, Wayne State University, 4100 John R, Detroit, Michigan 48201. 3. Karmanos Cancer Institute, Wayne State University, 4100 John R, Detroit, Michigan 48201 and Delphinus Medical Technologies, 46701 Commerce Center Drive, Plymouth, Michigan 48170. 4. Henry Ford Health System, 2799 W Grand Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan 48202. 5. Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Department of Health and Human Services, 9609 Medical Center Drive MSC 9774, Bethesda, Maryland 20892.
Abstract
PURPOSE: High breast density, as measured by mammography, is associated with increased breast cancer risk, but standard methods of assessment have limitations including 2D representation of breast tissue, distortion due to breast compression, and use of ionizing radiation. Ultrasound tomography (UST) is a novel imaging method that averts these limitations and uses sound speed measures rather than x-ray imaging to estimate breast density. The authors evaluated the reproducibility of measures of speed of sound and changes in this parameter using UST. METHODS: One experienced and five newly trained raters measured sound speed in serial UST scans for 22 women (two scans per person) to assess inter-rater reliability. Intrarater reliability was assessed for four raters. A random effects model was used to calculate the percent variation in sound speed and change in sound speed attributable to subject, scan, rater, and repeat reads. The authors estimated the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for these measures based on data from the authors' experienced rater. RESULTS: Median (range) time between baseline and follow-up UST scans was five (1-13) months. Contributions of factors to sound speed variance were differences between subjects (86.0%), baseline versus follow-up scans (7.5%), inter-rater evaluations (1.1%), and intrarater reproducibility (∼0%). When evaluating change in sound speed between scans, 2.7% and ∼0% of variation were attributed to inter- and intrarater variation, respectively. For the experienced rater's repeat reads, agreement for sound speed was excellent (ICC = 93.4%) and for change in sound speed substantial (ICC = 70.4%), indicating very good reproducibility of these measures. CONCLUSIONS: UST provided highly reproducible sound speed measurements, which reflect breast density, suggesting that UST has utility in sensitively assessing change in density.
PURPOSE: High breast density, as measured by mammography, is associated with increased breast cancer risk, but standard methods of assessment have limitations including 2D representation of breast tissue, distortion due to breast compression, and use of ionizing radiation. Ultrasound tomography (UST) is a novel imaging method that averts these limitations and uses sound speed measures rather than x-ray imaging to estimate breast density. The authors evaluated the reproducibility of measures of speed of sound and changes in this parameter using UST. METHODS: One experienced and five newly trained raters measured sound speed in serial UST scans for 22 women (two scans per person) to assess inter-rater reliability. Intrarater reliability was assessed for four raters. A random effects model was used to calculate the percent variation in sound speed and change in sound speed attributable to subject, scan, rater, and repeat reads. The authors estimated the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for these measures based on data from the authors' experienced rater. RESULTS: Median (range) time between baseline and follow-up UST scans was five (1-13) months. Contributions of factors to sound speed variance were differences between subjects (86.0%), baseline versus follow-up scans (7.5%), inter-rater evaluations (1.1%), and intrarater reproducibility (∼0%). When evaluating change in sound speed between scans, 2.7% and ∼0% of variation were attributed to inter- and intrarater variation, respectively. For the experienced rater's repeat reads, agreement for sound speed was excellent (ICC = 93.4%) and for change in sound speed substantial (ICC = 70.4%), indicating very good reproducibility of these measures. CONCLUSIONS: UST provided highly reproducible sound speed measurements, which reflect breast density, suggesting that UST has utility in sensitively assessing change in density.
Authors: Christy G Woolcott; Shannon M Conroy; Chisato Nagata; Giske Ursin; Celine M Vachon; Martin J Yaffe; Ian S Pagano; Celia Byrne; Gertraud Maskarinec Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2013-10-11 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: W Weiwad; A Heinig; L Goetz; H Hartmann; D Lampe; J Buchmann; R Millner; R P Spielmann; S H Heywang-Koebrunner Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2000-12 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Neb Duric; Norman Boyd; Peter Littrup; Mark Sak; Lukasz Myc; Cuiping Li; Erik West; Sal Minkin; Lisa Martin; Martin Yaffe; Steven Schmidt; Muhammad Faiz; Jason Shen; Olga Melnichouk; Qing Li; Teri Albrecht Journal: Med Phys Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Snehal M Pinto Pereira; Valerie A McCormack; John H Hipwell; Carol Record; Louise S Wilkinson; Sue M Moss; David J Hawkes; Isabel dos-Santos-Silva Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2011-06-21 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: K Kerlikowske; D Grady; J Barclay; S D Frankel; S H Ominsky; E A Sickles; V Ernster Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1998-12-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Jacques Benichou; Celia Byrne; Laura A Capece; Leslie E Carroll; Kathy Hurt-Mullen; David Y Pee; Martine Salane; Catherine Schairer; Mitchell H Gail Journal: Cancer Detect Prev Date: 2003
Authors: Jeff Wang; Ania Azziz; Bo Fan; Serghei Malkov; Catherine Klifa; David Newitt; Silaja Yitta; Nola Hylton; Karla Kerlikowske; John A Shepherd Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-12-04 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Mark Sak; Neb Duric; Peter Littrup; Lisa Bey-Knight; Haythem Ali; Patricia Vallieres; Mark E Sherman; Gretchen L Gierach Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol Date: 2016-09-29 Impact factor: 2.998
Authors: Elizabeth A M OʼFlynn; Jeremie Fromageau; Araminta E Ledger; Alessandro Messa; Ashley DʼAquino; Minouk J Schoemaker; Maria Schmidt; Neb Duric; Anthony J Swerdlow; Jeffrey C Bamber Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Neb Duric; Mark Sak; Shaoqi Fan; Ruth M Pfeiffer; Peter J Littrup; Michael S Simon; David H Gorski; Haythem Ali; Kristen S Purrington; Rachel F Brem; Mark E Sherman; Gretchen L Gierach Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2020-01-29 Impact factor: 4.241