Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Radiology
Published in: European Radiology 6/2012

01-06-2012 | Breast

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

Authors: Alberto Tagliafico, Giulio Tagliafico, Davide Astengo, Francesca Cavagnetto, Raffaella Rosasco, Giuseppe Rescinito, Francesco Monetti, Massimo Calabrese

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 6/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

To compare breast density on digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis using fully automated software.

Methods

Following institutional approval and written informed consent from all participating women, both digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and full-field digital mammography (FFDM) were obtained. Breast percentage density was calculated with software on DBT and FFDM.

Results

Fifty consecutive patients (mean age, 51 years; range, 35–83 years) underwent both FFDM and DBT. Using a method based on the integral curve, breast density showed higher results on FFDM (68.1 ± 12.1 for FFDM and 51.9 ± 6.5 for DBT). FFDM overestimated breast density in 16.2% (P < 0.0001). Using a method based on maximum entropy thresholding, breast density showed higher results on FFDM (68.1 ± 12.1 for FFDM and 51.9 ± 6.5 for DBT). FFDM overestimated breast density in 11.4% (P < 0.0001). There was a good correlation among BI-RADS categories on a four-grade scale and the density evaluated with DBT and FFDM (r = 0.54, P < 0.01 and r = 0.44, P < 0.01).

Conclusion

Breast density appeared to be significantly underestimated on digital breast tomosynthesis.

Key Points

  • Breast density is considered to be an independent risk factor for cancer
  • Density can be assessed on full-field digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis
  • Objective automated estimation of breast density eliminates subjectivity
  • Automated estimation is more accurate than BI-RADS quantitative evaluation
  • Breast density may be significantly underestimated on digital breast tomosynthesis
Literature
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 103:1898–1905PubMedCrossRef
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 46:94–105CrossRef
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 242:698–715PubMedCrossRef
4.
Harvey JA, Bovbjerg VE (2004) Quantitative assessment of mammographic breast density: relationship with breast cancer risk. Radiology 230:29–41PubMedCrossRef
5.
Highnam R, Jeffreys M, McCormack V et al (2007) Comparing measurements of breast density. Phys Med Biol 52:5881–5895PubMedCrossRef
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 14:1065–1073PubMedCrossRef
7.
Gram IT, Funkhouser E, Tabar L (1997) The Tabar classification of mammographic parenchymal patterns. Eur J Radiol 24:131–136PubMedCrossRef
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–R861PubMedCrossRef
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 87:670–675PubMedCrossRef
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 252:40–49PubMedCrossRef
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 18:35–40PubMedCrossRef
12.
Niklason LT, Christian BT, Niklason LE et al (1997) Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. Radiology 205:399–406PubMed
13.
Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM et al (2009) Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:586–591PubMedCrossRef
14.
Tagliafico A, Calabrese M, Tagliafico G et al (2011) Increased mammographic breast density in acromegaly: quantitative and qualitative assessment. Eur J Endocrinol 164:335–340PubMedCrossRef
15.
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 56:453–471PubMedCrossRef
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 356:227–232PubMedCrossRef
19.
Tagliafico A, Astengo D, Cavagnetto F et al (2011) One-to-one 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 20:1545–1553PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Mammographic density estimation: one-to-one comparison of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis using fully automated software
Authors
Alberto Tagliafico
Giulio Tagliafico
Davide Astengo
Francesca Cavagnetto
Raffaella Rosasco
Giuseppe Rescinito
Francesco Monetti
Massimo Calabrese
Publication date
01-06-2012
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 6/2012
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-012-2380-y

Other articles of this Issue 6/2012

European Radiology 6/2012 Go to the issue

Cardiac

Prospective ECG triggering reduces prosthetic heart valve-induced artefacts compared with retrospective ECG gating on 256-slice CT

Cardiac

Extracardiac findings detected by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging

Magnetic Resonance

Precise measurement of renal filtration and vascular parameters using a two-compartment model for dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of the kidney gives realistic normal values

Musculoskeletal

Cross-sectional area of the labrum: role in the diagnosis of anterior acetabular labral tears

Cardiac

Quantitative analysis of left ventricular dyssynchrony using cardiac computed tomography versus three-dimensional echocardiography

Hepatobiliary-Pancreas

Conventional transarterial chemoembolisation in combination with sorafenib for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a pilot study