Literature DB >> 28943893

Current and Future Methods for Measuring Breast Density: A Brief Comparative Review.

Mark A Sak1, Peter J Littrup2,3, Neb Duric1,2, Maeve Mullooly4,5, Mark E Sherman6, Gretchen L Gierach4.   

Abstract

Breast density is one of the strongest predictors of breast cancer risk. Women with the densest breasts are 4 to 6 times more likely to develop cancer compared with those with the lowest densities. Breast density is generally assessed using mammographic imaging; however, this approach has limitations. Magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound tomography are some alternative imaging modalities that can aid mammography in patient screening and the measurement of breast density. As breast density becomes more commonly discussed, knowledge of the advantages and limitations of breast density as a marker of risk will become more critical. This review article discusses the relationship between breast density and breast cancer risk, lists the benefits and drawbacks of using multiple different imaging modalities to measure density and briefly discusses how breast density will be applied to aid in breast cancer prevention and treatment.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast cancer risk; Breast density; Mammography; Ultrasound tomography

Year:  2015        PMID: 28943893      PMCID: PMC5609705          DOI: 10.2217/bmt.15.13

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast Cancer Manag        ISSN: 1758-1923


  92 in total

1.  Comparative study of density analysis using automated whole breast ultrasound and MRI.

Authors:  Woo Kyung Moon; Yi-Wei Shen; Chiun-Sheng Huang; Sheng-Chy Luo; Aida Kuzucan; Jeon-Hor Chen; Ruey-Feng Chang
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Breast-density legislation--practical considerations.

Authors:  Priscilla J Slanetz; Phoebe E Freer; Robyn L Birdwell
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2015-02-12       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Comparison of mammographic density assessed as volumes and areas among women undergoing diagnostic image-guided breast biopsy.

Authors:  Gretchen L Gierach; Berta M Geller; John A Shepherd; Deesha A Patel; Pamela M Vacek; Donald L Weaver; Rachael E Chicoine; Ruth M Pfeiffer; Bo Fan; Amir Pasha Mahmoudzadeh; Jeff Wang; Jason M Johnson; Sally D Herschorn; Louise A Brinton; Mark E Sherman
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2014-08-19       Impact factor: 4.254

4.  Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening.

Authors:  Etta D Pisano; Constantine Gatsonis; Edward Hendrick; Martin Yaffe; Janet K Baum; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Emily F Conant; Laurie L Fajardo; Lawrence Bassett; Carl D'Orsi; Roberta Jong; Murray Rebner
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2005-09-16       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Impact of breast density on computer-aided detection for breast cancer.

Authors:  Rachel F Brem; Jeffrey W Hoffmeister; Jocelyn A Rapelyea; Gilat Zisman; Kevin Mohtashemi; Guarav Jindal; Martin P Disimio; Steven K Rogers
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 3.959

6.  Water-fat separation with IDEAL gradient-echo imaging.

Authors:  Scott B Reeder; Charles A McKenzie; Angel R Pineda; Huanzhou Yu; Ann Shimakawa; Anja C Brau; Brian A Hargreaves; Garry E Gold; Jean H Brittain
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 4.813

7.  A pilot study of compositional analysis of the breast and estimation of breast mammographic density using three-dimensional T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging.

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

8.  In vivo breast sound-speed imaging with ultrasound tomography.

Authors:  Cuiping Li; Nebojsa Duric; Peter Littrup; Lianjie Huang
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2009-08-03       Impact factor: 2.998

9.  Digital mammographic density and breast cancer risk: a case-control study of six alternative density assessment methods.

Authors:  Amanda Eng; Zoe Gallant; John Shepherd; Valerie McCormack; Jingmei Li; Mitch Dowsett; Sarah Vinnicombe; Steve Allen; Isabel dos-Santos-Silva
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2014-09-20       Impact factor: 6.466

10.  Volumetric breast density estimation from full-field digital mammograms: a validation study.

Authors:  Albert Gubern-Mérida; Michiel Kallenberg; Bram Platel; Ritse M Mann; Robert Martí; Nico Karssemeijer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-01-21       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  12 in total

Review 1.  A review of the influence of mammographic density on breast cancer clinical and pathological phenotype.

Authors:  Michael S Shawky; Cecilia W Huo; Kara Britt; Erik W Thompson; Michael A Henderson; Andrew Redfern
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2019-06-08       Impact factor: 4.872

2.  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

Review 3.  Chemical Effects on Breast Development, Function, and Cancer Risk: Existing Knowledge and New Opportunities.

Authors:  Jennifer E Kay; Bethsaida Cardona; Ruthann A Rudel; Laura N Vandenberg; Ana M Soto; Sofie Christiansen; Linda S Birnbaum; Suzanne E Fenton
Journal:  Curr Environ Health Rep       Date:  2022-08-19

4.  Tissue density in the progression of breast cancer: Bedside to bench and back again.

Authors:  Emily Fabiano; Jian Zhang; Cynthia A Reinhart-King
Journal:  Curr Opin Biomed Eng       Date:  2022-03-28

Review 5.  Review of quantitative multiscale imaging of breast cancer.

Authors:  Michael A Pinkert; Lonie R Salkowski; Patricia J Keely; Timothy J Hall; Walter F Block; Kevin W Eliceiri
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2018-01-22

6.  Using Speed of Sound Imaging to Characterize Breast Density.

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

Review 7.  Breast density implications and supplemental screening.

Authors:  Athina Vourtsis; Wendie A Berg
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-09-25       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  Whole Breast Sound Speed Measurement from US Tomography Correlates Strongly with Volumetric Breast Density from Mammography.

Authors:  Mark Sak; Peter Littrup; Rachel Brem; Neb Duric
Journal:  J Breast Imaging       Date:  2020-07-17

9.  Phenotypic Basis for Matrix Stiffness-Dependent Chemoresistance of Breast Cancer Cells to Doxorubicin.

Authors:  M Hunter Joyce; Carolyne Lu; Emily R James; Rachel Hegab; Shane C Allen; Laura J Suggs; Amy Brock
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2018-09-05       Impact factor: 6.244

Review 10.  Environmental exposures during windows of susceptibility for breast cancer: a framework for prevention research.

Authors:  Mary Beth Terry; Karin B Michels; Julia Green Brody; Celia Byrne; Shiuan Chen; D Joseph Jerry; Kristen M C Malecki; Mary Beth Martin; Rachel L Miller; Susan L Neuhausen; Kami Silk; Amy Trentham-Dietz
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2019-08-20       Impact factor: 8.408

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.