OBJECTIVE: To present and evaluate an automated method to correct scaling between Dixon water/fat images used in breast density (BD) assessments. METHODS: Dixon images were acquired in 14 subjects with different T1 weightings (flip angles, FA, 4°/16°). Our method corrects intensity differences between water (W) and fat (F) images via the application of a uniform scaling factor (SF), determined subject-by-subject. Based on the postulation that optimal SFs yield relatively featureless summed fat/scaled-water (F+WSF) images, each SF was chosen as that which generated the lowest 95th-percentile in the absolute spatial-gradient image-volume of F+WSF . Water-fraction maps were calculated for data acquired with low/high FAs, and BD (%) was the total percentage water within each breast volume. RESULTS: Corrected/uncorrected BD ranged from, respectively, 10.9-71.8%/8.9-66.7% for low-FA data to 8.1-74.3%/5.6-54.3% for high-FA data. Corrected metrics had an average absolute increase in BD of 6.4% for low-FA data and 18.4% for high-FA data. BD values estimated from low- and high-FA data were closer following SF-correction. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate need for scaling in such BD assessments, where our method brought high-FA and low-FA data into closer agreement. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: We demonstrated a feasible method to address a main source of inaccuracy in Dixon-based BD measurements.
OBJECTIVE: To present and evaluate an automated method to correct scaling between Dixon water/fat images used in breast density (BD) assessments. METHODS: Dixon images were acquired in 14 subjects with different T1 weightings (flip angles, FA, 4°/16°). Our method corrects intensity differences between water (W) and fat (F) images via the application of a uniform scaling factor (SF), determined subject-by-subject. Based on the postulation that optimal SFs yield relatively featureless summed fat/scaled-water (F+WSF) images, each SF was chosen as that which generated the lowest 95th-percentile in the absolute spatial-gradient image-volume of F+WSF . Water-fraction maps were calculated for data acquired with low/high FAs, and BD (%) was the total percentage water within each breast volume. RESULTS: Corrected/uncorrected BD ranged from, respectively, 10.9-71.8%/8.9-66.7% for low-FA data to 8.1-74.3%/5.6-54.3% for high-FA data. Corrected metrics had an average absolute increase in BD of 6.4% for low-FA data and 18.4% for high-FA data. BD values estimated from low- and high-FA data were closer following SF-correction. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate need for scaling in such BD assessments, where our method brought high-FA and low-FA data into closer agreement. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: We demonstrated a feasible method to address a main source of inaccuracy in Dixon-based BD measurements.
Authors: Norman F Boyd; Lisa J Martin; Michael Bronskill; Martin J Yaffe; Neb Duric; Salomon Minkin Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2010-07-08 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Wendie A Berg; Zheng Zhang; Daniel Lehrer; Roberta A Jong; Etta D Pisano; Richard G Barr; Marcela Böhm-Vélez; Mary C Mahoney; W Phil Evans; Linda H Larsen; Marilyn J Morton; Ellen B Mendelson; Dione M Farria; Jean B Cormack; Helga S Marques; Amanda Adams; Nolin M Yeh; Glenna Gabrielli Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-04-04 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Ke Nie; Jeon-Hor Chen; Siwa Chan; Man-Kwun I Chau; Hon J Yu; Shadfar Bahri; Tiffany Tseng; Orhan Nalcioglu; Min-Ying Su Journal: Med Phys Date: 2008-12 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: Norman Boyd; Lisa Martin; Sofia Chavez; Anoma Gunasekara; Ayesha Salleh; Olga Melnichouk; Martin Yaffe; Christine Friedenreich; Salomon Minkin; Michael Bronskill Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2009-05-04 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Diana S M Buist; Peggy L Porter; Constance Lehman; Stephen H Taplin; Emily White Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2004-10-06 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Simon J Doran; John H Hipwell; Rachel Denholm; Björn Eiben; Marta Busana; David J Hawkes; Martin O Leach; Isabel Dos Santos Silva Journal: Med Phys Date: 2017-07-25 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Araminta E W Ledger; Erica D Scurr; Julie Hughes; Alison Macdonald; Toni Wallace; Karen Thomas; Robin Wilson; Martin O Leach; Maria A Schmidt Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-03-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Bas H M van der Velden; Markus H A Janse; Max A A Ragusi; Claudette E Loo; Kenneth G A Gilhuijs Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-10-22 Impact factor: 4.379