Quantitative evaluation of breast density using a dual‐energy technique on a digital breast tomosynthesis system

Abstract

Purpose Although breast density is considered a strong risk factor of breast cancer, its quantitative assessment is difficult. To investigate a quantitative method of measuring breast density using dual‐energy mammographic imaging with central digital breast tomosynthesis in physically uniform and nonuniform phantoms. Material and methods The dual‐energy imaging unit used a tungsten anode and silver filter with 30 kVp for high‐energy images and 20 kVp for low‐energy images. Uniform glandular‐equivalent phantoms were used to calibrate a dual‐energy based decomposition algorithm. The first study used uniform breast phantoms which ranged in thicknesses from 20 to 70 mm, in 10‐mm increments, and which provided 30%, 50%, and 70% of breast density. The second study used uniform phantoms ranging from 10% to 90% of breast density. The third study used non‐uniform phantoms (at an average density of 50%) with a thickness which ranged from 20 to 90 mm, in 10‐mm increments. Results The root mean square error of breast density measurements was 2.64–3.34% for the uniform, variable thickness phantoms, 4.17% for the uniform, variable density phantoms, and 4.49% for the nonuniform, variable thickness phantoms. Conclusion The dual‐energy technique could be used to measure breast density with a margin of error of < 10% using digital breast tomosynthesis.

Breast density quantification in dual‐energy mammography using virtual anthropomorphic phantoms

“…However, given the recent interest in dual-energy digital breast tomosynthesis (DE-DBT), some studies have assessed the material decomposition technique in DBT projections. Lu et al 13 used the material decomposition formalism to estimate VBD in the central projections of DE-DBT acquisitions. They reported root mean square errors of 2.64% to 3.34% for uniform, variable thickness phantoms, 4.17% for uniform, variable density phantoms, and 4.49% nonuniform, variable thickness phantoms.…”

“…However, given the recent interest in dual‐energy digital breast tomosynthesis (DE‐DBT), some studies have assessed the material decomposition technique in DBT projections. Lu et al 13 . used the material decomposition formalism to estimate VBD in the central projections of DE‐DBT acquisitions.…”

“…Lu et al. 13 used the material decomposition formalism to estimate VBD in the central projections of DE‐DBT acquisitions. They reported root mean square errors of 2.64% to 3.34% for uniform, variable thickness phantoms, 4.17% for uniform, variable density phantoms, and 4.49% for nonuniform, variable thickness phantoms.…”

“…6 Alternatively, the combination of two mammography images acquired with different x-ray spectra, known as dual-energy mammography, enables the direct decomposition of the image into two of the materials that constitute the breast, and techniques based on the decomposition into fibroglandular and adipose tissue thicknesses have been proposed to obtain VBD, [7][8][9][10] however, their application in clinical images or anthropomorphic phantoms has been limited. Previous studies have mainly focused on assessing the accuracy of these methods using calibration or quality control phantoms, [11][12][13] leaving a gap in our understanding of their performance in real-world clinical settings. Furthermore, there is a lack of multimodality studies comparing VBD measured with dual-energy to measurements obtained from 3D modalities such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or computed tomography (CT), which provide a closer approximation to the volumetric distribution of breast tissue.…”

Mamografia digital por dupla energia usando simulação Monte Carlo: otimização da quantificação da morfologia de microcalcificações e componentes do tecido mamário

“…Com os valores de Dc l e Dc h estabelecidos, os coeficientes de calibração, descritos nas equações 2.37 e 2.39, puderam ser determinados. Diversos autores determinam numericamente estes coeficientes, através do método de mínimos-quadrados [18,41,120,121]. Porém, incertezas podem ser propagadas pela utilização deste método, gerando flutuações indesejadas nas quantificações de microcalcificações e frações glandulares [18].…”