BACKGROUND: The amount of fibroglandular tissue (FGT) has been linked to breast cancer risk based on mammographic density studies. Currently, the qualitative assessment of FGT on mammogram (MG) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is prone to intra and inter-observer variability. The purpose of this study is to develop an objective quantitative FGT measurement tool for breast MRI that could provide significant clinical value. METHODS: An IRB approved study was performed. Sixty breast MRI cases with qualitative assessment of mammographic breast density and MRI FGT were randomly selected for quantitative analysis from routine breast MRIs performed at our institution from 1/2013 to 12/2014. Blinded to the qualitative data, whole breast and FGT contours were delineated on T1-weighted pre contrast sagittal images using an in-house, proprietary segmentation algorithm which combines the region-based active contours and a level set approach. FGT (%) was calculated by: [segmented volume of FGT (mm(3))/(segmented volume of whole breast (mm(3))] ×100. Statistical correlation analysis was performed between quantified FGT (%) on MRI and qualitative assessments of mammographic breast density and MRI FGT. RESULTS: There was a significant positive correlation between quantitative MRI FGT assessment and qualitative MRI FGT (r=0.809, n=60, P<0.001) and mammographic density assessment (r=0.805, n=60, P<0.001). There was a significant correlation between qualitative MRI FGT assessment and mammographic density assessment (r=0.725, n=60, P<0.001). The four qualitative assessment categories of FGT correlated with the calculated mean quantitative FGT (%) of 4.61% (95% CI, 0-12.3%), 8.74% (7.3-10.2%), 18.1% (15.1-21.1%), 37.4% (29.5-45.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative measures of FGT (%) were computed with data derived from breast MRI and correlated significantly with conventional qualitative assessments. This quantitative technique may prove to be a valuable tool in clinical use by providing computer generated standardized measurements with limited intra or inter-observer variability.
BACKGROUND: The amount of fibroglandular tissue (FGT) has been linked to breast cancer risk based on mammographic density studies. Currently, the qualitative assessment of FGT on mammogram (MG) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is prone to intra and inter-observer variability. The purpose of this study is to develop an objective quantitative FGT measurement tool for breast MRI that could provide significant clinical value. METHODS: An IRB approved study was performed. Sixty breast MRI cases with qualitative assessment of mammographic breast density and MRI FGT were randomly selected for quantitative analysis from routine breast MRIs performed at our institution from 1/2013 to 12/2014. Blinded to the qualitative data, whole breast and FGT contours were delineated on T1-weighted pre contrast sagittal images using an in-house, proprietary segmentation algorithm which combines the region-based active contours and a level set approach. FGT (%) was calculated by: [segmented volume of FGT (mm(3))/(segmented volume of whole breast (mm(3))] ×100. Statistical correlation analysis was performed between quantified FGT (%) on MRI and qualitative assessments of mammographic breast density and MRI FGT. RESULTS: There was a significant positive correlation between quantitative MRI FGT assessment and qualitative MRI FGT (r=0.809, n=60, P<0.001) and mammographic density assessment (r=0.805, n=60, P<0.001). There was a significant correlation between qualitative MRI FGT assessment and mammographic density assessment (r=0.725, n=60, P<0.001). The four qualitative assessment categories of FGT correlated with the calculated mean quantitative FGT (%) of 4.61% (95% CI, 0-12.3%), 8.74% (7.3-10.2%), 18.1% (15.1-21.1%), 37.4% (29.5-45.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative measures of FGT (%) were computed with data derived from breast MRI and correlated significantly with conventional qualitative assessments. This quantitative technique may prove to be a valuable tool in clinical use by providing computer generated standardized measurements with limited intra or inter-observer variability.
Authors: Brandi T Nicholson; Alexander P LoRusso; Mark Smolkin; Viktor E Bovbjerg; Gina R Petroni; Jennifer A Harvey Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 3.173
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: C Byrne; C Schairer; L A Brinton; J Wolfe; N Parekh; M Salane; C Carter; R Hoover Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2001-02 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Jingmei Li; Keith Humphreys; Louise Eriksson; Gustaf Edgren; Kamila Czene; Per Hall Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-04-22 Impact factor: 44.544
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: 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: Richard Ha; Peter Chang; Eralda Mema; Simukayi Mutasa; Jenika Karcich; Ralph T Wynn; Michael Z Liu; Sachin Jambawalikar Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: Sarah Eskreis-Winkler; Elizabeth J Sutton; Donna D'Alessio; Katherine Gallagher; Nicole Saphier; Joseph Stember; Danny F Martinez; Elizabeth A Morris; Katja Pinker Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2022-02-15 Impact factor: 5.119
Authors: Laurent Dercle; Matthew Fronheiser; Lin Lu; Shuyan Du; Wendy Hayes; David K Leung; Amit Roy; Julia Wilkerson; Pingzhen Guo; Antonio T Fojo; Lawrence H Schwartz; Binsheng Zhao Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2020-03-20 Impact factor: 13.801