Dataset Information

Agreement between Breast Percentage Density Estimations from Standard-Dose versus Synthetic Digital Mammograms: Results from a Large Screening Cohort Using Automated Measures.

ABSTRACT: Purpose To evaluate agreement between automated estimates of breast density made from standard-dose versus synthetic digital mammograms in a large cohort of women undergoing screening. Materials and Methods This study received institutional review board approval with waiver of consent. A total of 3668 negative (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System category 1 or 2) digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening examinations consecutively performed over a 4-month period at one institution for which both standard-dose and synthetic mammograms were available for analysis were retrospectively analyzed. All mammograms were acquired with a Selenia Dimensions system (Hologic, Bedford, Mass), and synthetic mammograms were generated by using the U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved "C-View" software module. The "For Presentation" standard-dose mammograms and synthetic images were analyzed by using a fully automated algorithm. Agreement between density estimates was assessed by using Pearson correlation, linear regression, and Bland-Altman analysis. Differences were evaluated by using the paired Student t test. Results Breast percentage density (PD) estimates from synthetic and standard-dose mammograms were highly correlated (r = 0.92, P < .001), and the 95% Bland-Altman limits of agreement between PD estimates were -6.4% to 9.9%. Synthetic mammograms had PD estimates by an average of 1.7% higher than standard-dose mammograms (P < .001), with a larger disagreement by 1.56% in women with highly dense breast tissue (P < .0001). Conclusion Fully automated estimates of breast density made from synthetic mammograms are generally comparable to those made from standard-dose mammograms. This may be important, as standard two-dimensional mammographic images are increasingly being replaced by synthetic mammograms in DBT screening in an attempt to reduce radiation dose. © RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

SUBMITTER: Conant EF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5452882 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Agreement between Breast Percentage Density Estimations from Standard-Dose versus Synthetic Digital Mammograms: Results from a Large Screening Cohort Using Automated Measures.

Conant Emily F EF Keller Brad M BM Pantalone Lauren L Gastounioti Aimilia A McDonald Elizabeth S ES Kontos Despina D

Radiology 20170125 3

Purpose To evaluate agreement between automated estimates of breast density made from standard-dose versus synthetic digital mammograms in a large cohort of women undergoing screening. Materials and Methods This study received institutional review board approval with waiver of consent. A total of 3668 negative (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System category 1 or 2) digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening examinations consecutively performed over a 4-month period at one institution for wh ...[more]

PMID: 28121523

Similar Datasets

Project description:Breast density, which is a measure of the relative amount of fibroglandular tissue within the breast area, is one of the most important breast cancer risk factors. Accurate segmentation of fibroglandular tissues and breast area is crucial for computing the breast density. Semiautomatic and fully automatic computer-aided design tools have been developed to estimate the percentage of breast density in mammograms. However, the available approaches are usually limited to specific mammogram views and are inadequate for complete delineation of the pectoral muscle. These tools also perform poorly in cases of data variability and often require an experienced radiologist to adjust the segmentation threshold for fibroglandular tissue within the breast area. This study proposes a new deep learning architecture that automatically estimates the area-based breast percentage density from mammograms using a weight-adaptive multitask learning approach. The proposed approach simultaneously segments the breast and dense tissues and further estimates the breast percentage density. We evaluate the performance of the proposed model in both segmentation and density estimation on an independent evaluation set of 7500 craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique-view mammograms from Kuopio University Hospital, Finland. The proposed multitask segmentation approach outperforms and achieves average relative improvements of 2.88% and 9.78% in terms of F-score compared to the multitask U-net and a fully convolutional neural network, respectively. The estimated breast density values using our approach strongly correlate with radiologists' assessments with a Pearson's correlation of [Formula: see text] (95% confidence interval [0.89, 0.91]). We conclude that our approach greatly improves the segmentation accuracy of the breast area and dense tissues; thus, it can play a vital role in accurately computing the breast density. Our density estimation model considerably reduces the time and effort needed to estimate density values from mammograms by radiologists and therefore, decreases inter- and intra-reader variability.

Project description:IntroductionMammographic density, the white radiolucent part of a mammogram, is a marker of breast cancer risk and mammographic sensitivity. There are several means of measuring mammographic density, among which are area-based and volumetric-based approaches. Current volumetric methods use only unprocessed, raw mammograms, which is a problematic restriction since such raw mammograms are normally not stored. We describe fully automated methods for measuring both area and volumetric mammographic density from processed images.MethodsThe data set used in this study comprises raw and processed images of the same view from 1462 women. We developed two algorithms for processed images, an automated area-based approach (CASAM-Area) and a volumetric-based approach (CASAM-Vol). The latter method was based on training a random forest prediction model with image statistical features as predictors, against a volumetric measure, Volpara, for corresponding raw images. We contrast the three methods, CASAM-Area, CASAM-Vol and Volpara directly and in terms of association with breast cancer risk and a known genetic variant for mammographic density and breast cancer, rs10995190 in the gene ZNF365. Associations with breast cancer risk were evaluated using images from 47 breast cancer cases and 1011 control subjects. The genetic association analysis was based on 1011 control subjects.ResultsAll three measures of mammographic density were associated with breast cancer risk and rs10995190 (p<0.025 for breast cancer risk and p<1 × 10(-6) for rs10995190). After adjusting for one of the measures there remained little or no evidence of residual association with the remaining density measures (p>0.10 for risk, p>0.03 for rs10995190).ConclusionsOur results show that it is possible to obtain reliable automated measures of volumetric and area mammographic density from processed digital images. Area and volumetric measures of density on processed digital images performed similar in terms of risk and genetic association.

Project description:We developed a semi-automated tool to assess mammographic density (MD), a phenotype risk marker for breast cancer (BC), in full-field digital images and evaluated its performance testing its reproducibility, comparing our MD estimates with those obtained by visual inspection and using Cumulus, verifying their association with factors that influence MD, and studying the association between MD measures and subsequent BC risk. Three radiologists assessed MD using DM-Scan, the new tool, on 655 processed images (craniocaudal view) obtained in two screening centers. Reproducibility was explored computing pair-wise concordance correlation coefficients (CCC). The agreement between DM-Scan estimates and visual assessment (semi-quantitative scale, 6 categories) was quantified computing weighted kappa statistics (quadratic weights). DM-Scan and Cumulus readings were compared using CCC. Variation of DM-Scan measures by age, body mass index (BMI) and other MD modifiers was tested in regression mixed models with mammographic device as a random-effect term. The association between DM-Scan measures and subsequent BC was estimated in a case-control study. All BC cases in screening attendants (2007-2010) at a center with full-field digital mammography were matched by age and screening year with healthy controls (127 pairs). DM-Scan was used to blindly assess MD in available mammograms (112 cases/119 controls). Unconditional logistic models were fitted, including age, menopausal status and BMI as confounders. DM-Scan estimates were very reliable (pairwise CCC: 0.921, 0.928 and 0.916). They showed a reasonable agreement with visual MD assessment (weighted kappa ranging 0.79-0.81). DM-Scan and Cumulus measures were highly concordant (CCC ranging 0.80-0.84), but ours tended to be higher (4%-5% on average). As expected, DM-Scan estimates varied with age, BMI, parity and family history of BC. Finally, DM-Scan measures were significantly associated with BC (p-trend=0.005). Taking MD<7% as reference, OR per categories of MD were: OR7%-17%=1.32 (95% CI=0.59-2.99), OR17%-28%=2.28 (95% CI=1.03-5.04) and OR>=29%=3.10 (95% CI=1.35-7.14). Our results confirm that DM-Scan is a reliable tool to assess MD in full-field digital mammograms.

Project description:Background While digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is rapidly replacing digital mammography (DM) in breast cancer screening, the potential of DBT density measures for breast cancer risk assessment remains largely unexplored. Purpose To compare associations of breast density estimates from DBT and DM with breast cancer. Materials and Methods This retrospective case-control study used contralateral DM/DBT studies from women with unilateral breast cancer and age- and ethnicity-matched controls (September 19, 2011-January 6, 2015). Volumetric percent density (VPD%) was estimated from DBT using previously validated software. For comparison, the publicly available Laboratory for Individualized Breast Radiodensity Assessment software package, or LIBRA, was used to estimate area-based percent density (APD%) from raw and processed DM images. The commercial Quantra and Volpara software packages were applied to raw DM images to estimate VPD% with use of physics-based models. Density measures were compared by using Spearman correlation coefficients (r), and conditional logistic regression was performed to examine density associations (odds ratios [OR]) with breast cancer, adjusting for age and body mass index. Results A total of 132 women diagnosed with breast cancer (mean age ± standard deviation [SD], 60 years ± 11) and 528 controls (mean age, 60 years ± 11) were included. Moderate correlations between DBT and DM density measures (r = 0.32-0.75; all P < .001) were observed. Volumetric density estimates calculated from DBT (OR, 2.3 [95% CI: 1.6, 3.4] per SD for VPD%DBT) were more strongly associated with breast cancer than DM-derived density for both APD% (OR, 1.3 [95% CI: 0.9, 1.9] [P < .001] and 1.7 [95% CI: 1.2, 2.3] [P = .004] per SD for LIBRA raw and processed data, respectively) and VPD% (OR, 1.6 [95% CI: 1.1, 2.4] [P = .01] and 1.7 [95% CI: 1.2, 2.6] [P = .04] per SD for Volpara and Quantra, respectively). Conclusion The associations between quantitative breast density estimates and breast cancer risk are stronger for digital breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Yaffe in this issue.

Dataset Information

Agreement between Breast Percentage Density Estimations from Standard-Dose versus Synthetic Digital Mammograms: Results from a Large Screening Cohort Using Automated Measures.

Publications

Agreement between Breast Percentage Density Estimations from Standard-Dose versus Synthetic Digital Mammograms: Results from a Large Screening Cohort Using Automated Measures.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets