Mammographic density estimation: One-to-one comparison of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis using fully automated software

European Radiology

Volumn 22, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 1265-1270

  Tagliafico, Alberto ^a   Tagliafico, Giulio ^a   Astengo, Davide ^a   Cavagnetto, Francesca ^b   Rosasco, Raffaella ^b   Rescinito, Giuseppe ^b   Monetti, Francesco ^b   Calabrese, Massimo ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GENOA   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GENOA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Breast; Density; Digital; Mammography; Tomosynthesis

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST; BREAST DENSITY; BREAST EXAMINATION; COMPUTER PROGRAM; DIGITAL BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; ENTROPY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RADIATION DOSE; RADIODIAGNOSIS; TUMOR VOLUME; X RAY TUBE;

ABSORPTIOMETRY, PHOTON; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ALGORITHMS; FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; PATTERN RECOGNITION, AUTOMATED; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 84861529310     PISSN: 09387994     EISSN: 14321084     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-012-2380-y     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Lehman CD, Blume JD, Weatherall P et al (2005) Screening women at high risk for breast cancer with mammography and magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer 103:1898-1905 (Pubitemid 40563263)
2. Sardanelli F, Podo F, Santoro F et al; High Breast Cancer Risk Italian 1 (HIBCRIT-1) Study (2011) Multicenter surveillance of women at high genetic breast cancer risk using mammography, ultrasonography, and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (the high breast cancer risk Italian 1 study): final results. Invest Radiol 46:94-105
3. Sardanelli F, Podo F, D'Agnolo G, Trial High Breast Cancer Risk Italian et al (2007) Multicenter comparative multimodality surveillance of women at genetic-familial high risk for breast cancer (HIBCRIT study): interim results. Radiology 242:698-715
4. Harvey JA, Bovbjerg VE (2004) Quantitative assessment of mammographic breast density: relationship with breast cancer risk. Radiology 230:29-41 (Pubitemid 37549780)
5. Highnam R, Jeffreys M, McCormack V et al (2007) Comparing measurements of breast density. Phys Med Biol 52:5881-5895 (Pubitemid 47485419)
6. Diorio C, Pollak M, Byrne C et al (2005) Insulin-like growth factor-I, IGF-binding protein-3, and mammographic breast density. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 14:1065-1073 (Pubitemid 40656449)
7. Gram IT, Funkhouser E, Tabar L (1997) The Tabar classification of mammographic parenchymal patterns. Eur J Radiol 24:131-136 (Pubitemid 27165353)
8. Gram IT, Bremnes Y, Ursin G, Maskarinec G, Bjurstam N, Lund E (2005) Percentage density, Wolfe's and Tabar's mammographic patterns: agreement and association with risk factors for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 7:R854-R861
9. Boyd NF, Byng JW, Jong RA et al (1995) Quantitative classification of mammographic densities and breast cancer risk: results from the Canadian National Breast Screening Study. J Natl Cancer Inst 87:670-675
10. Bakic PR, Carton AK, Kontos D, Zhang C, Troxel AB, Maidment AD (2009) Breast percent density: estimation on digital mammograms and central tomosynthesis projections. Radiology 252:40-49
11. Tagliafico A, Tagliafico G, Tosto S et al (2009) Mammographic density estimation: comparison among BI-RADS categories, a semi-automated software and a fully automated one. Breast 18:35-40
12. Niklason LT, Christian BT, Niklason LE et al (1997) Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. Radiology 205:399-406 (Pubitemid 27467317)
13. Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM et al (2009) Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:586-591
14. Tagliafico A, Calabrese M, Tagliafico G et al (2011) Increased mammographic breast density in acromegaly: quantitative and qualitative assessment. Eur J Endocrinol 164:335-340
15. European Reference Organisation for Quality Assured Breast Screening and Diagnostic Services. http://www.euref.org. Accessed May 17, 2011
16. Dance DR, Young KC, van Engen RE (2011) Estimation of mean glandular dose for breast tomosynthesis: factors for use with the UK, European and IAEA breast dosimetry protocols. Phys Med Biol 56:453-471
17. Cavagnetto F, Bampi R, Calabrese M, Orlando B, Villa A, Taccini G (2011) Comparison of dose in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and full-field digital mammography (FFDM). doi: 10.1594/ecr2011/C-1997
18. Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ et al (2007) Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 356:227-232
19. Tagliafico A, Astengo D, Cavagnetto F et al (2011) One-toone comparison between digital spot compression view and digital breast tomosynthesis. Eur Radiol. doi:10.1007/s00330-011-2305-1
20. Gennaro G, Toledano A, di Maggio C et al (2010) Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study. Eur Radiol 20:1545-1553