Fully automated quantitative estimation of volumetric breast density from digital breast tomosynthesis images: Preliminary results and comparison with digital mammography and MR imaging

Radiology

Volumn 279, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 65-74

  Pertuz, Said ^b   McDonald, Elizabeth S ^a   Weinstein, Susan P ^a   Conant, Emily F ^a   Kontos, Despina ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSIDAD INDUSTRIAL DE SANTANDER   (Colombia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; ARTIFACT REDUCTION; AUTOMATION; BREAST CANCER; BREAST DENSITY; CANCER RISK; CANCER SCREENING; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIGITAL BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS; DIGITAL IMAGING; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; IMAGING SOFTWARE; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY SYSTEM; MIDDLE AGED; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SCANNER; POST HOC ANALYSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTOCOL COMPLIANCE; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; UNITED STATES; VERY ELDERLY; VOLUMETRIC BREAST DENSITY; VOLUMETRY; YOUNG ADULT; ALGORITHM; AUTOMATED PATTERN RECOGNITION; BREAST TUMOR; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; MAMMOGRAPHY; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SOFTWARE;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ALGORITHMS; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; PATTERN RECOGNITION, AUTOMATED; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SOFTWARE;

EID: 84962892951     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2015150277     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ, et al. Mam-mographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2007; 356(3):227-236.
2. McCormack VA , dos Santos Silva I. Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15(6): 1159-1169.
3. Harvey JA, Yaffe MJ, D'Orsi C, Sickles EA. Density and breast cancer risk. Radiology 2013;267(2):657-658.
4. Price ER, Hargreaves J, Lipson JA, et al. The California breast density information group: a collaborative response to the issues of breast density, breast cancer risk, and breast density notifcation legislation. Radiology 2013;269(3):887-892.
5. Boyd NF, Martin LJ, Yaffe MJ, Minkin S. Mammographic density and breast cancer risk: current understanding and future prospects. Breast Cancer Res 2011;13(6):223.
6. Vachon CM, van Gils CH, Sellers TA, et al. Mammographic density, breast cancer risk and risk prediction. Breast Cancer Res 2007;9(6):217.
7. Siegel R, Ma J, Zou Z, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin 2014;64(1): 9-29.
8. Pettersson A, Graff RE, Ursin G, et al. Mammographic density phenotypes and risk of breast cancer: a meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst 2014;106(5):dju078.
9. Darabi H, Czene K, Zhao W, Liu J, Hall P, Humphreys K. Breast cancer risk prediction and individualised screening based on common genetic variation and breast density measurement. Breast Cancer Res 2012; 14(1):R25.
10. Sprague BL, Stout NK, Schechter C, et al. Benefts, harms, and cost-effectiveness of supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts. Ann Intern Med 2015;162(3):157-166.
11. Nicholson BT, LoRusso AP, Smolkin M, Bovbjerg VE, Petroni GR, Harvey JA. Accuracy of assigned BI-RADS breast density category defnitions. Acad Radiol 2006;13(9): 1143-1149.
12. Redondo A, Comas M, Macià F, et al. Inter-and intraradiologist variability in the BI-RADS assessment and breast density categories for screening mammograms. Br J Radiol 2012; 85(1019):1465-1470.
13. Tice JA, Cummings SR, Ziv E, Kerlikowske K. Mammographic breast density and the Gail model for breast cancer risk prediction in a screening population. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2005;94(2):115-122.
14. Byng J W, Boyd NF, Fishell E, Jong RA, Yaffe MJ. The quantitative analysis of mam-mographic densities. Phys Med Biol 1994; 39(10):1629-1638.
15. Heine JJ, Carston MJ, Scott CG, et al. An automated approach for estimation of breast density. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008;17(11):3090-3097.
16. Keller BM, Nathan DL, Wang Y, et al. Estimation of breast percent density in raw and processed full feld digital mammography images via adaptive fuzzy c-means clustering and support vector machine segmentation. Med Phys 2012;39(8):4903-4917.
17. Wu S, Weinstein SP, Conant EF, Kontos D. Automated fbroglandular tissue segmentation and volumetric density estimation in breast MRI using an atlas-aided fuzzy C-means method. Med Phys 2013;40(12):122302.
18. Gubern-Mérida A, Kallenberg M, Mann RM, Martí R, Karssemeijer N. Breast segmentation and density estimation in breast MRI: a fully automatic framework. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform 2015;19(1):349-357.
19. Gubern-Mérida A, Kallenberg M, Platel B, Mann RM, Martí R, Karssemeijer N. Volu-metric breast density estimation from full-feld digital mammograms: a validation study. PLoS One 2014;9(1):e85952.
20. Alonzo-Proulx O, Packard N, Boone JM, et al. Validation of a method for measuring the volumetric breast density from digital mam-mograms. Phys Med Biol 2010;55(11):3027-3044.
21. van Engeland S, Snoeren PR, Huisman H, Boetes C, Karssemeijer N. Volumetric breast density estimation from full-feld digital mammograms. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2006;25(3):273-282.
22. Morrish OW, Tucker L, Black R, Willsher P, Duffy SW, Gilbert FJ. Mammographic breast density: comparison of methods for quantitative evaluation. Radiology 2015;275(2):356-365.
23. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Eben EB, et al. Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projection images: comparison with digital breast tomo-synthesis with full-feld digital mammographic images. Radiology 2014;271(3):655-663.
24. Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL, et al. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthe-sis in combination with digital mammogra-phy. JAMA 2014;311(24):2499-2507.
25. McCarthy AM, Kontos D, Synnestvedt M, et al. Screening outcomes following implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis in a general-population screening program. J Natl Cancer Inst 2014;106(11):dju316.
26. Zuley ML, Guo B, Catullo VJ, et al. Comparison of two-dimensional synthesized mammo-grams versus original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images. Radiology 2014;271(3):664-671.
27. Szeliski R. Computer vision: algorithms and applications. London, England: Springer, 2010 .
28. Pertuz S, Puig D, Garcia MA. Analysis of focus measure operators for shape from focus. Pattern Recognit 2013;46(5):1415-1432.
29. Bakic PR, Carton AK, Kontos D, Zhang C, Troxel AB, Maidment AD. Breast percent density: estimation on digital mammograms and central tomosynthesis projections. Radiology 2009;252(1):40-49.
30. Highnam R, Brady M, Yaffe MJ, Karssemei-jer N, Harvey J. Robust breast composition measurement-Volpara TM. Digit Mam-mogr 2010;6136:342-349.
31. Tagliafco A, Tagliafco G, Astengo D, Airaldi S, Calabrese M, Houssami N. Comparative estimation of percentage breast tissue density for digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, and magnetic resonance imaging. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2013;138(1): 311-317.
32. Kopans DB. Basic physics and doubts about relationship between mammographically determined tissue density and breast cancer risk. Radiology 2008;246(2):348-353.
33. Helvie MA. Digital mammography imaging: breast tomosynthesis and advanced applications. Radiol Clin North Am 2010;48(5):917-929.
34. Conant EF. Clinical implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis. Radiol Clin North Am 2014;52(3):499-518.
35. Haas BM, Kalra V, Geisel J, Raghu M, Durand M, Philpotts LE. Comparison of tomo-synthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening. Radiology 2013;269(3):694-700.
36. Niklason LT, Christian BT, Niklason LE, et al. Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. Radiology 1997;205(2):399-406.
37. Tagliafco A, Tagliafco G, Houssami N. Differences in breast density assessment using mammography, tomosynthesis and MRI and their implications for practice. Br J Radiol 2013;86(1032):20130528.
38. Wang J, Azziz A, Fan B, et al. Agreement of mammographic measures of volumetric breast density to MRI. PLoS One 2013;8(12): e81653.
39. Kontos D, Ying Y, Bakic PR, Conant EF, Maidment AD. A comparative study of volumetric breast density estimation in digital mammography and magnetic resonance imaging: results from a high-risk population. In: Karssemeijer N, Summers RM, eds. Proceedings of SPIE: medical imaging 2010-computer-aided diagnosis. Vol 7624. Bellingham, Wash: International Society for Optics and Photonics, 2010; 762409.
40. Sprague BL, Gangnon RE, Burt V, et al. Prevalence of mammographically dense breasts in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst 2014; 106(10):dju255.
41. Ding J, Warren R, Warsi I, et al. Evaluating the effectiveness of using standard mam-mogram form to predict breast cancer risk: case-control study. Cancer Epidemiol Bio-markers Prev 2008;17(5):1074-1081.
42. Lokate M, Kallenberg MG, Karssemeijer N, Van den Bosch MA, Peeters PH, Van Gils CH. Volumetric breast density from full-feld digital mammograms and its association with breast cancer risk factors: a comparison with a threshold method. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2010;19(12):3096-3105.
43. Shepherd JA, Kerlikowske K, Ma L, et al. Volume of mammographic density and risk of breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Bio-markers Prev 2011;20(7):1473-1482.