Impact of positional difference on the measurement of breast density using MRI

Abstract

Purpose: This study investigated the impact of arms/hands and body position on the measurement of breast density using MRI. Methods: Noncontrast-enhanced T1-weighted images were acquired from 32 healthy women. Each subject received four MR scans using different experimental settings, including a high resolution hands-up, a low resolution hands-up, a high resolution hands-down, and finally, another high resolution hands-up after repositioning. The breast segmentation was performed using a fully automatic chest template-based method. The breast volume (BV), fibroglandular tissue volume (FV), and percent density (PD) measured from the four MR scan settings were analyzed. Results: A high correlation of BV, FV, and PD between any pair of the four MR scans was noted (r > 0.98 for all). Using the generalized estimating equation method, a statistically significant difference in mean BV among four settings was noted (left breast, score test p = 0.0056; right breast, score test p = 0.0016), adjusted for age and body mass index. Despite differences in BV, there were no statistically significant differences in the mean PDs among the four settings (p > 0.10 for left and right breasts). Using Bland-Altman plots, the smallest mean difference/bias and standard deviations for BV, FV, and PD were noted when comparing hands-up high vs low resolution when the breast positions were exactly the same. Conclusions: The authors' study showed that BV, FV, and PD measurements from MRI of different positions were highly correlated. BV may vary with positions but the measured PD did not differ significantly between positions. The study suggested that the percent density analyzed from MRI studies acquired using different arms/hands and body positions from multiple centers can be combined for analysis. C 2015 American Association of Physicists in Medicine. [http://dx

Association between breast cancer, breast density, and body adiposity evaluated by MRI

“…We concluded that compression had a negligible effect in the thickness of the UAAL measurements. Other studies have indicated a high consistency in MRI BD measured at different field strength, image resolution, and patient positions [42]. …”

Quantitative Measurements of Breast Density Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…Forty-one studies did not meet the selection inclusion criteria: no adequate breast density data (n = 20), qualitative analysis (n = 12), editorials (n = 4), conference abstracts (n = 3), post-mortem study (n = 1), and phantom study (n = 1). Finally, 38 studies attained the inclusion criteria [1,2,3,5,11,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57] and were included in the analysis as shown in Table 1.…”

“…In fact, 16 studies (41.03%) used non-contrast-enhanced T1-weighted [1,2,26,27,28,29,31,33,35,44,45,48,49,50,51,53], while in 12 studies (30.77%) non-contrast-enhanced images were integrated with contrast-enhanced images [25,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,47,49]. In terms of breast density segmentation/measurement, the majority of the studies (20 studies; 51.28%) used FCM clustering algorithm [1,2,11,25,26,27,28,29,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42], while 7 studies (17.95%) used FCM and N3 algorithm [45,46,47,48,49,50,51], 4 studies (10.26%) interactive thresholding algorithm [3,5,52,53], 4 studies (10.26%) in-house customized software [29,53,54,55], one study (2.56%) manual software [57]; however, two studies did not provide the information [43,44].…”

Quantitative assessment of breast density using transmission ultrasound tomography

“…Kopans has argued with respect to breast density determination: “Future investigations need to use 3D information,” and that “Radiologists can guesstimate the percentage of breast tissue that is dense, but they are still using 2D information to assess a 3D phenomenon.” To this end, volumetric measurement of breast density from intrinsically 3D imaging modalities is considered more accurate due to their scientific validity. Recently, 3D‐segmented magnetic resonance (MR) images have been used to assess breast density and appear to be robust to positioning issues and give reproducible results . However, MR imaging is relatively costly and requires specialized expertise to run and operate.…”

“…To this end, volumetric measurement of breast density from intrinsically 3D imaging modalities is considered more accurate due to their scientific validity. Recently, 3D-segmented magnetic resonance (MR) images have been used 45 to assess breast density and appear to be robust to positioning issues 46 and give reproducible results. 47 However, MR imaging is relatively costly and requires specialized expertise to run and operate.…”