PURPOSE: To assess a fully automated method for volumetric breast density (VBD) estimation in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and to compare the findings with those of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Bilateral DBT images, FFDM images, and sagittal breast MR images were retrospectively collected from 68 women who underwent breast cancer screening from October 2011 to September 2012 with institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant protocols. A fully automated computer algorithm was developed for quantitative estimation of VBD from DBT images. FFDM images were processed with U.S. Food and Drug Administration-cleared software, and the MR images were processed with a previously validated automated algorithm to obtain corresponding VBD estimates. Pearson correlation and analysis of variance with Tukey-Kramer post hoc correction were used to compare the multimodality VBD estimates. RESULTS: Estimates of VBD from DBT were significantly correlated with FFDM-based and MR imaging-based estimates with r = 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.74, 0.90) and r = 0.88 (95% CI: 0.82, 0.93), respectively (P < .001). The corresponding correlation between FFDM and MR imaging was r = 0.84 (95% CI: 0.76, 0.90). However, statistically significant differences after post hoc correction (α = 0.05) were found among VBD estimates from FFDM (mean ± standard deviation, 11.1% ± 7.0) relative to MR imaging (16.6% ± 11.2) and DBT (19.8% ± 16.2). Differences between VDB estimates from DBT and MR imaging were not significant (P = .26). CONCLUSION: Fully automated VBD estimates from DBT, FFDM, and MR imaging are strongly correlated but show statistically significant differences. Therefore, absolute differences in VBD between FFDM, DBT, and MR imaging should be considered in breast cancer risk assessment.
PURPOSE: To assess a fully automated method for volumetric breast density (VBD) estimation in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and to compare the findings with those of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Bilateral DBT images, FFDM images, and sagittal breast MR images were retrospectively collected from 68 women who underwent breast cancer screening from October 2011 to September 2012 with institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant protocols. A fully automated computer algorithm was developed for quantitative estimation of VBD from DBT images. FFDM images were processed with U.S. Food and Drug Administration-cleared software, and the MR images were processed with a previously validated automated algorithm to obtain corresponding VBD estimates. Pearson correlation and analysis of variance with Tukey-Kramer post hoc correction were used to compare the multimodality VBD estimates. RESULTS: Estimates of VBD from DBT were significantly correlated with FFDM-based and MR imaging-based estimates with r = 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.74, 0.90) and r = 0.88 (95% CI: 0.82, 0.93), respectively (P < .001). The corresponding correlation between FFDM and MR imaging was r = 0.84 (95% CI: 0.76, 0.90). However, statistically significant differences after post hoc correction (α = 0.05) were found among VBD estimates from FFDM (mean ± standard deviation, 11.1% ± 7.0) relative to MR imaging (16.6% ± 11.2) and DBT (19.8% ± 16.2). Differences between VDB estimates from DBT and MR imaging were not significant (P = .26). CONCLUSION: Fully automated VBD estimates from DBT, FFDM, and MR imaging are strongly correlated but show statistically significant differences. Therefore, absolute differences in VBD between FFDM, DBT, and MR imaging should be considered in breast cancer risk assessment.
Authors: Mariëtte Lokate; Michiel G J Kallenberg; Nico Karssemeijer; Maurice A A J Van den Bosch; Petra H M Peeters; Carla H Van Gils Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2010-10-04 Impact factor: 4.254
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
Authors: A Redondo; M Comas; F Macià; F Ferrer; C Murta-Nascimento; M T Maristany; E Molins; M Sala; X Castells Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2012-09-19 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Brad M Keller; Diane L Nathan; Yan Wang; Yuanjie Zheng; James C Gee; Emily F Conant; Despina Kontos Journal: Med Phys Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Hatef Darabi; Kamila Czene; Wanting Zhao; Jianjun Liu; Per Hall; Keith Humphreys Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2012-02-07 Impact factor: 6.466
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
Authors: Lawrence R MacDonald; Joseph Y Lo; Gregory M Sturgeon; Chengeng Zeng; Robert L Harrison; Paul E Kinahan; William Paul Segars Journal: IEEE Trans Radiat Plasma Med Sci Date: 2020-04-29
Authors: Siun M Walsh; Sandra B Brennan; Emily C Zabor; Laura H Rosenberger; Michelle Stempel; Lizza Lebron-Zapata; Mary L Gemignani Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2019-08-08 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Aimilia Gastounioti; Lauren Pantalone; Christopher G Scott; Eric A Cohen; Fang F Wu; Stacey J Winham; Matthew R Jensen; Andrew D A Maidment; Celine M Vachon; Emily F Conant; Despina Kontos Journal: Radiology Date: 2021-09-14 Impact factor: 11.105
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
Authors: Srilalan Krishnamoorthy; Trevor Vent; Bruno Barufaldi; Andrew D A Maidment; Joel S Karp; Suleman Surti Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2020-12-23 Impact factor: 3.609