Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 1/2013

01-02-2013 | Brief Report

Comparative estimation of percentage breast tissue density for digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, and magnetic resonance imaging

Authors: Alberto Tagliafico, Giulio Tagliafico, Davide Astengo, Sonia Airaldi, Massimo Calabrese, Nehmat Houssami

Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Issue 1/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Given the increasingly important role of breast density as an independent risk factor for breast cancer, and the variable breast imaging tests that potentially provide measures for density. We compared breast tissue density on digital mammography (FFDM), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) using semi-automated automated software. These three imaging modalities have not been previously directly compared for estimating breast tissue density. Following informed consent from all participating women, FFDM, DBT, and MRI were performed. Breast percentage density was calculated with semi-automated software, and compared, for all three imaging modalities. 48 patients (mean age, 41 years; range, 35–67 years) underwent FFDM, DBT, and MRI. Percent FFDM, DBT, and MRI breast density measures showed a positive linear correlation, (r = 0.95 for MRI and DBT, P < 0.0001; r = 0.97, P < 0.0001 for FFDM and DBT; r = 0.87 for FFDM and MRI). Linear regression analysis related to MRI and DBT had a high r 2 = 0.89 (95 % CI = 0.88–0.99, P < 0.001). FFDM overestimated breast density in 15.1 % in comparison to DBT and in 16.2 % in comparison to MRI, or conversely each of DBT and MRI underestimated density (relative to FFDM) by 15.1 or 16.2 %, respectively. Differences in percentage breast density between FFDM and DBT, and between FFDM and MRI, were highly significant (P < 0.0001). Differences in percentage breast density between DBT and MRI were not significant (P > 0.05). Breast density measures using FFDM, DBT, or MRI were generally well-correlated, although differences were noted between estimates when comparing FFDM and DBT, and for estimates comparing FFDM and MRI. No signficant differences in percentage density were observed when comparing DBT and MRI. Our work highlight that differences between FFDM, DBT, and MRI should be considered when measuring percentage breast density.
Literature
1.
go back to reference McCormack VA, Dos SSI (2006) Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 15:1159–1169PubMedCrossRef McCormack VA, Dos SSI (2006) Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 15:1159–1169PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Khazen M, Warren RM, Boggis CR, Bryant EC, Reed S, Warsi I, Pointon LJ, Kwan-Lim GE, Thompson D, Eeles R, Easton D, Evans DG, Leach MO, Collaborators in the United Kingdom Medical Research Council Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Breast Screening (MARIBS) Study (2008) A pilot study of compositional analysis of the breast and estimation of breast mammographic density using three-dimensional T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 17:2268–2274PubMedCrossRef Khazen M, Warren RM, Boggis CR, Bryant EC, Reed S, Warsi I, Pointon LJ, Kwan-Lim GE, Thompson D, Eeles R, Easton D, Evans DG, Leach MO, Collaborators in the United Kingdom Medical Research Council Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Breast Screening (MARIBS) Study (2008) A pilot study of compositional analysis of the breast and estimation of breast mammographic density using three-dimensional T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 17:2268–2274PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Byng JW, Yaffe MJ, Jong RA et al (1998) Analysis of mammographic density and breast cancer risk from digitized mammograms. Radiographics 18:1587–1598PubMed Byng JW, Yaffe MJ, Jong RA et al (1998) Analysis of mammographic density and breast cancer risk from digitized mammograms. Radiographics 18:1587–1598PubMed
5.
go back to reference Tagliafico A, Calabrese M, Tagliafico G, Resmini E, Martinoli C, Rebora A, Colao A, Pivonello R, Ferone D (2011) Increased mammographic breast density in acromegaly: quantitative and qualitative assessment. Eur J Endocrinol 164:335–340PubMedCrossRef Tagliafico A, Calabrese M, Tagliafico G, Resmini E, Martinoli C, Rebora A, Colao A, Pivonello R, Ferone D (2011) Increased mammographic breast density in acromegaly: quantitative and qualitative assessment. Eur J Endocrinol 164:335–340PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Tagliafico A, Tagliafico G, Tosto S, Chiesa F, Martinoli C, Derchi LE, Calabrese M (2009) Mammographic density estimation: comparison among BI-RADS categories, a semi-automated software and a fully automated one. Breast 18:35–40PubMedCrossRef Tagliafico A, Tagliafico G, Tosto S, Chiesa F, Martinoli C, Derchi LE, Calabrese M (2009) Mammographic density estimation: comparison among BI-RADS categories, a semi-automated software and a fully automated one. Breast 18:35–40PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Tagliafico A, Tagliafico G, Astengo D, Cavagnetto F, Rosasco R, Rescinito G, Monetti F, Calabrese M (2012) Mammographic density estimation: one-to-one comparison of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis using fully automated software. Eur Radiol 22:1265–1270PubMedCrossRef Tagliafico A, Tagliafico G, Astengo D, Cavagnetto F, Rosasco R, Rescinito G, Monetti F, Calabrese M (2012) Mammographic density estimation: one-to-one comparison of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis using fully automated software. Eur Radiol 22:1265–1270PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Poon CS, Bronskill MJ, Henkelman RM, Boyd NF (1992) Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging parameters and their relationship to mammographic pattern. J Natl Cancer Inst 84:777–781PubMedCrossRef Poon CS, Bronskill MJ, Henkelman RM, Boyd NF (1992) Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging parameters and their relationship to mammographic pattern. J Natl Cancer Inst 84:777–781PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Graham SJ, Bronskill MJ, Byng JW, Yaffe MJ, Boyd NF (1996) Quantitative correlation of breast tissue parameters using magnetic resonance and X-ray mammography. Br J Cancer 73:162–168PubMedCrossRef Graham SJ, Bronskill MJ, Byng JW, Yaffe MJ, Boyd NF (1996) Quantitative correlation of breast tissue parameters using magnetic resonance and X-ray mammography. Br J Cancer 73:162–168PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Lee NA, Rusinek H, Weinreb J et al (1997) Fatty and fibroglandular tissue volumes in the breasts of women 20–83 years old: comparison of X-ray mammography and computer-assisted MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 168:501–506PubMed Lee NA, Rusinek H, Weinreb J et al (1997) Fatty and fibroglandular tissue volumes in the breasts of women 20–83 years old: comparison of X-ray mammography and computer-assisted MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 168:501–506PubMed
11.
go back to reference Klifa C, Carballido-Gamio J, Wilmes L et al (2004) Quantification of breast tissue index from MR data using fuzzy clustering. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 3:1667–1670PubMed Klifa C, Carballido-Gamio J, Wilmes L et al (2004) Quantification of breast tissue index from MR data using fuzzy clustering. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 3:1667–1670PubMed
12.
go back to reference Wei J, Chan HP, Helvie MA et al (2004) Correlation between mammographic density and volumetric fibroglandular tissue estimated on breast MR images. Med Phys 31:933–942PubMedCrossRef Wei J, Chan HP, Helvie MA et al (2004) Correlation between mammographic density and volumetric fibroglandular tissue estimated on breast MR images. Med Phys 31:933–942PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Reeder SB, McKenzie CA, Pineda AR, Yu H, Shimakawa A, Brau AC, Hargreaves BA, Gold GE, Brittain JH (2007) Water-fat separation with IDEAL gradient-echo imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 25:644–652PubMedCrossRef Reeder SB, McKenzie CA, Pineda AR, Yu H, Shimakawa A, Brau AC, Hargreaves BA, Gold GE, Brittain JH (2007) Water-fat separation with IDEAL gradient-echo imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 25:644–652PubMedCrossRef
14.
15.
go back to reference Sardanelli F, Boetes C, Borisch B et al (2010) Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: recommendations from the EUSOMA working group. Eur J Cancer 46:1296–1316PubMedCrossRef Sardanelli F, Boetes C, Borisch B et al (2010) Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: recommendations from the EUSOMA working group. Eur J Cancer 46:1296–1316PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Jones J, Hunter D (1995) Consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ 311:376–380PubMedCrossRef Jones J, Hunter D (1995) Consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ 311:376–380PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Landis JR, Kock GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174PubMedCrossRef Landis JR, Kock GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Harvey JA, Bovbjerg VE (2004) Quantitative assessment of mammographic breast density: relationship with breast cancer risk. Radiology 230:29–41PubMedCrossRef Harvey JA, Bovbjerg VE (2004) Quantitative assessment of mammographic breast density: relationship with breast cancer risk. Radiology 230:29–41PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ et al (2007) Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 356:227–232PubMedCrossRef Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ et al (2007) Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 356:227–232PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Varghese JS, Thompson DJ, Michailidou K, Lindstr√∂m S, Turnbull C, Brown J, Leyland J, Warren RM, Luben RN, Loos RJ, Wareham NJ, Rommens J, Paterson AD, Martin LJ, Vachon CM, Scott CG, Atkinson EJ, Couch FJ, Apicella C, Southey MC, Stone J, Li J, Eriksson L, Czene K, Boyd NF, Hall P, Hopper JL, Tamimi RM, MODE Consortium, Rahman N, Easton DF (2012) Mammographic breast density and breast cancer: evidence of a shared genetic basis. Cancer Res 72:1478–1484PubMedCrossRef Varghese JS, Thompson DJ, Michailidou K, Lindstr√∂m S, Turnbull C, Brown J, Leyland J, Warren RM, Luben RN, Loos RJ, Wareham NJ, Rommens J, Paterson AD, Martin LJ, Vachon CM, Scott CG, Atkinson EJ, Couch FJ, Apicella C, Southey MC, Stone J, Li J, Eriksson L, Czene K, Boyd NF, Hall P, Hopper JL, Tamimi RM, MODE Consortium, Rahman N, Easton DF (2012) Mammographic breast density and breast cancer: evidence of a shared genetic basis. Cancer Res 72:1478–1484PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference Thompson DJ, Leach MO, Kwan-Lim G, Gayther SA, Ramus SJ, Warsi I, Lennard F, Khazen M, Bryant E, Reed S, Boggis CR, Evans DG, Eeles RA, Easton DF, Warren RM (2009) Assessing the usefulness of a novel MRI-based breast density estimation algorithm in a cohort of women at high genetic risk of breast cancer: the UK MARIBS study. Breast Cancer Res 11(6):R80PubMedCrossRef Thompson DJ, Leach MO, Kwan-Lim G, Gayther SA, Ramus SJ, Warsi I, Lennard F, Khazen M, Bryant E, Reed S, Boggis CR, Evans DG, Eeles RA, Easton DF, Warren RM (2009) Assessing the usefulness of a novel MRI-based breast density estimation algorithm in a cohort of women at high genetic risk of breast cancer: the UK MARIBS study. Breast Cancer Res 11(6):R80PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Jordan CD, Daniel BL, Koch KM, Yu H, Conolly S, Hargreaves BA (2012) Subject-specific models of susceptibility-induced B(0) field variations in breast MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging. doi:10.1002/jmri.23762 Jordan CD, Daniel BL, Koch KM, Yu H, Conolly S, Hargreaves BA (2012) Subject-specific models of susceptibility-induced B(0) field variations in breast MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging. doi:10.​1002/​jmri.​23762
Metadata
Title
Comparative estimation of percentage breast tissue density for digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, and magnetic resonance imaging
Authors
Alberto Tagliafico
Giulio Tagliafico
Davide Astengo
Sonia Airaldi
Massimo Calabrese
Nehmat Houssami
Publication date
01-02-2013
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Issue 1/2013
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-013-2419-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2013

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 1/2013 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine