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

Tagliafico, Alberto; Tagliafico, Giulio; Astengo, Davide; Cavagnetto, F.; Rosasco, Raffaella; Rescinito, Giuseppe; Monetti, Francesco; Calabrese, Massimo

doi:10.1007/s00330-012-2380-y

Cited by 52 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 18 publications

(28 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…20,21 Automated methods use mathematical, statistical and physical modelling to calculate breast density; such automated methods include computerized texture-based techniques, calibration approaches and dual X-ray absorptiometry. [22][23][24] Others are automated thresholding approaches, such as Autodensity and MedDensity, 25,26 and three physical model-based techniques: standard mammographic form (SMF), Volpara and Quantra. [27][28][29] Irrespective of the method of measurement, breast density has been shown to be a potent risk factor for breast cancer.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Measurement of breast density with digital breast tomosynthesis—a systematic review

Ekpo¹,

McEntee²

2014

BJR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has gained acceptance as an adjunct to digital mammography in screening. Now that breast density reporting is mandated in several states in the USA, it is increasingly important that the methods of breast density measurement be robust, reliable and consistent. Breast density assessment with DBT needs some consideration since quantitative methods are modelled for two-dimensional (2D) mammography. A review of methods used for breast density assessment with DBT was performed. Existing evidence shows Cumulus has better reproducibility than that of the breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS®) but still suffers from subjective variability; MedDensity is limited by image noise, whilst Volpara and Quantra are robust and consistent. The reported BI-RADs inter-reader breast density agreement (k) ranged from 0.65 to 0.91, with inter-reader correlation (r) ranging from 0.70 to 0.93. The correlation (r) between BI-RADS and Cumulus ranged from 0.54-0.94, whilst that of BI-RADs and MedDensity ranged from 0.48-0.78. The reported agreement (k) between BI-RADs and Volpara is 0.953. Breast density correlation between DBT and 2D mammography ranged from 0.73 to 0.97, with agreement (k) ranging from 0.56 to 0.96. To avoid variability and provide more reliable breast density information for clinicians, automated volumetric methods are preferred.Breast cancer accounts for approximately 23% of all cancers in females and is the most frequent cause of cancer deaths in females worldwide.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Measurement of breast density with digital breast tomosynthesis—a systematic review

Ekpo¹,

McEntee²

2014

BJR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[103][104][105][106] Image J has demonstrated strong correlation with Cumulus and BIRADS 107 and positive association between breast density and cancer risk. 28,108 However, quantum and anatomical noise reduce the reliability of AutoDensity and MedDensity.…”

Section: Categorisation Of Breast Composition Using "Quantitative Arementioning

confidence: 99%

Breast composition: Measurement and clinical use

Ekpo¹,

Hogg²,

Highnam³

et al. 2015

Radiography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Breast density is a measure of the extent of radiodense fibroglandular tissue in the breast. The risk of developing breast cancer and the risk of missing cancer at screening rise with higher breast density. In this paper, the historical background to breast density measurement is outlined and current evidence based practice is explained. The relevance of breast density knowledge to mammographic practice and image interpretation is considered in the light of clinical assessment and notification of mammographic breast density (MBD). The current work also discusses risk stratification for decisionmaking regarding screening frequency and better modalities for earlier detection of breast cancer in the dense breast. Automated volumetric approaches are explained while ultrasound, digital breast tomosynthesis, molecular breast imaging, and magnetic resonance imaging are introduced as valuable adjuncts to digital mammography for imaging the dense breast. The work concludes on the important note that screened women should be notified of their breast density, and such notification should be accompanied with clear and adequate information about breast density and cancer risk, strategies associated with lower MBD, as well as best screening intervals and pathways for women with dense breasts. Adoption of these strategies may be crucial to early detection and treatment of cancer and improving survival from the disease.

show abstract

“…One of the first studies comparing breast density on digital mammograms and on the central projection of DBT reported a high correlation between breast density estimates on digital mammograms and those on central DBT projections, suggesting that the latter could be used to estimate breast density on three-dimensional (3D) reconstructed images with a lower radiation dose [20]. Further research compared breast density on FFDM and DBT using fully automated software, and it has been demonstrated that breast density may be significantly underestimated on DBT by up to 16% (relative to FFDM) [21]. Moreover, the authors suggest that automated estimation with software was more accurate than BI-RADS quantitative evaluation [21].…”

Section: Digital Breast Tomosynthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Further research compared breast density on FFDM and DBT using fully automated software, and it has been demonstrated that breast density may be significantly underestimated on DBT by up to 16% (relative to FFDM) [21]. Moreover, the authors suggest that automated estimation with software was more accurate than BI-RADS quantitative evaluation [21]. It is possible that differences between breast density assessment on DBT and FFDM could be attributed to differences in positioning, compression, dose to the detector and to software algorithms.…”

Section: Digital Breast Tomosynthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences in breast density assessment using mammography, tomosynthesis and MRI and their implications for practice

Tagliafico¹,

Tagliafico²,

Houssami³

2013

BJR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

Cited by 52 publications

References 18 publications

Measurement of breast density with digital breast tomosynthesis—a systematic review

Measurement of breast density with digital breast tomosynthesis—a systematic review

Breast composition: Measurement and clinical use

Differences in breast density assessment using mammography, tomosynthesis and MRI and their implications for practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About