Breast density analysis of digital breast tomosynthesis

被引:1
|
作者
Heine, John [1 ]
Fowler, Erin E. E. [1 ]
Weinfurtner, R. Jared [2 ]
Hume, Emma [1 ]
Tworoger, Shelley S. [1 ]
机构
[1] H Lee Moffitt Canc Ctr & Res Inst, Dept Canc Epidemiol, 12902 Bruce B Downs Blvd, Tampa, FL 33612 USA
[2] H Lee Moffitt Canc Ctr & Res Inst, Diagnost Imaging & Intervent Radiol, 12902 Bruce B Downs Blvd, Tampa, FL 33612 USA
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
CANCER RISK; MAMMOGRAPHY; SUSCEPTIBILITY; MODELS;
D O I
10.1038/s41598-023-45402-x
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Mammography shifted to digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in the US. An automated percentage of breast density (PD) technique designed for two-dimensional (2D) applications was evaluated with DBT using several breast cancer risk prediction measures: normalized-volumetric; dense volume; applied to the volume slices and averaged (slice-mean); and applied to synthetic 2D images. Volumetric measures were derived theoretically. PD was modeled as a function of compressed breast thickness (CBT). The mean and standard deviation of the pixel values were investigated. A matched case-control (CC) study (n=426 pairs) was evaluated. Odd ratios (ORs) were estimated with 95% confidence intervals. ORs were significant for PD: identical for volumetric and slice-mean measures [OR=1.43 (1.18, 1.72)] and [OR=1.44 (1.18, 1.75)] for synthetic images. A 2nd degree polynomial (concave-down) was used to model PD as a function of CBT: location of the maximum PD value was similar across CCs, occurring at 0.41xCBT, and PD was significant [OR=1.47 (1.21, 1.78)]. The means from the volume and synthetic images were also significant [ORs similar to 1.31 (1.09, 1.57)]. An alternative standardized 2D synthetic image was constructed, where each pixel value represents the percentage of breast density above its location. Several measures were significant and an alternative method for constructing a standardized 2D synthetic image was produced.
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Differential detection by breast density for digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography population screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Li, Tong
    Houssami, Nehmat
    Noguchi, Naomi
    Zeng, Aileen
    Marinovich, M. Luke
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2022, 127 (01) : 116 - 125
  • [42] Comparative estimation of percentage breast tissue density for digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, and magnetic resonance imaging
    Alberto Tagliafico
    Giulio Tagliafico
    Davide Astengo
    Sonia Airaldi
    Massimo Calabrese
    Nehmat Houssami
    Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 2013, 138 : 311 - 317
  • [43] Comparative estimation of percentage breast tissue density for digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, and magnetic resonance imaging
    Tagliafico, Alberto
    Tagliafico, Giulio
    Astengo, Davide
    Airaldi, Sonia
    Calabrese, Massimo
    Houssami, Nehmat
    BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT, 2013, 138 (01) : 311 - 317
  • [44] Evaluation of a new image reconstruction method for digital breast tomosynthesis: effects on the visibility of breast lesions and breast density
    Krammer, Julia
    Zolotarev, Sergei
    Hillman, Inge
    Karalis, Konstantinos
    Stsepankou, Dzmitry
    Vengrinovich, Valeriy
    Hesser, Juergen
    Svahn, Tony M.
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2019, 92 (1103):
  • [45] Association of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography With Cancer Detection and Recall Rates by Age and Breast Density
    Conant, Emily F.
    Barlow, William E.
    Herschorn, Sally D.
    Weaver, Donald L.
    Beaber, Elisabeth F.
    Tosteson, Anna N. A.
    Haas, Jennifer S.
    Lowry, Kathryn P.
    Stout, Natasha K.
    Trentham-Dietz, Amy
    diFlorio-Alexander, Roberta M.
    Li, Christopher I.
    Schnall, Mitchell D.
    Onega, Tracy
    Sprague, Brian L.
    Haas, Jennifer S.
    Onega, Tracy
    Tosteson, Anna N. A.
    Birdwell, Robyn
    Khorasani, Ramin
    Lacson, Ronilda
    Ozanne, Elissa
    Tosteson, Tor D.
    Bronson, Mackenzie
    Chen, Jane
    Goodrich, Martha
    Harris, Kimberly A.
    St Hubert, Stella
    Pearson, Loretta
    Andrews, Steven
    Anton, Kristen
    Batcho, Katrine
    Brawarsky, Phyllis
    Cook, Charles
    Das, Amar
    Dougher, Ryan
    Eliassen, Scottie
    Farr, Scott
    Felone, Carol
    Frazee, Tracy
    Gerlach, Scott
    Getty, George
    Gilman, John
    Hanson, Dick
    Johnson, Dennis
    Joseph, Brenda
    Laam, Leslie A.
    Levin, Brian
    Pyle, Steven
    Sims-Larabee, Laura
    JAMA ONCOLOGY, 2019, 5 (05) : 635 - 642
  • [46] Detection of Breast Cancer Using Digital Breast Tomosynthesis
    Veena, M.
    Padma, M. C.
    EMERGING RESEARCH IN ELECTRONICS, COMPUTER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, ICERECT 2018, 2019, 545 : 721 - 730
  • [47] Assessment of reproducibility of volumetric breast density measurement using dual energy digital breast tomosynthesis
    Huang, Hailiang
    Duan, Xiaoyu
    Zhao, Wei
    MEDICAL IMAGING 2021: PHYSICS OF MEDICAL IMAGING, 2021, 11595
  • [48] Efficacy of digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer diagnosis
    Alakhras, M.
    Mello-Thoms, C.
    Rickard, M.
    Bourne, R.
    Brennan, P. C.
    MEDICAL IMAGING 2014: IMAGE PERCEPTION, OBSERVER PERFORMANCE, AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, 2014, 9037
  • [49] BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS OR DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY FOR BREAST CANCER SCREENING?
    Svahn, Tony
    MEDICAL PHYSICS IN THE BALTIC STATES, 2011, : 53 - 56
  • [50] The Adjunctive Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Diagnosis of Breast Cancer
    Yang, Tsung-Lung
    Liang, Huei-Lung
    Chou, Chen-Pin
    Huang, Jer-Shyung
    Pan, Huay-Ben
    BIOMED RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL, 2013, 2013