Impact of errors in recorded compressed breast thickness measurements on volumetric density classification using volpara v1.5.0 software

Purpose: Mammographic density has been demonstrated to predict breast cancer risk. It has been proposed that it could be used for stratifying screening pathways and recommending additional imaging. Volumetric density tools use the recorded compressed breast thickness (CBT) of the breast measured at the x-ray unit in their calculation, however the accuracy of the recorded thickness can vary. The aim of this study was to investigate whether inaccuracies in recorded CBT impact upon volumetric density classification and to examine whether the current quality control (QC) standard is sufficient for assessing mammographic density. Methods: Raw data from 52 digital screening mammograms were included in the study. For each image, the clinically recorded CBT was artificially increased and decreased to simulate measurement error. Increments of 1mm were used up to ±15% error of recorded CBT was achieved. New images were created for each 1mm step in thickness resulting in a total of 974 images which then had Volpara Density Grade (VDG) and volumetric density percentage assigned. Results: A change in VDG was recorded in 38.5% (n= 20) of mammograms when applying ±15% error to the recorded CBT and 11.5 % (n= 6) were within the QC standard prescribed error of ±5mm. Conclusion: The current QC standard of ±5mm error in recorded CBT creates the potential for error in mammographic density measurement. This may lead to inaccurate classification of mammographic density. The current QC standard for assessing mammographic density should be reconsidered

A review on automatic mammographic density and parenchymal segmentation

Breast cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer in women. However, the exact cause(s) of breast cancer still remains unknown. Early detection, precise identification of women at risk, and application of appropriate disease prevention measures are by far the most effective way to tackle breast cancer. There are more than 70 common genetic susceptibility factors included in the current non-image-based risk prediction models (e.g., the Gail and the Tyrer-Cuzick models). Image-based risk factors, such as mammographic densities and parenchymal patterns, have been established as biomarkers but have not been fully incorporated in the risk prediction models used for risk stratification in screening and/or measuring responsiveness to preventive approaches. Within computer aided mammography, automatic mammographic tissue segmentation methods have been developed for estimation of breast tissue composition to facilitate mammographic risk assessment. This paper presents a comprehensive review of automatic mammographic tissue segmentation methodologies developed over the past two decades and the evidence for risk assessment/density classification using segmentation. The aim of this review is to analyse how engineering advances have progressed and the impact automatic mammographic tissue segmentation has in a clinical environment, as well as to understand the current research gaps with respect to the incorporation of image-based risk factors in non-image-based risk prediction models

Mammographic breast density: comparison of methods for quantitative evaluation.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the results from two software tools for measurement of mammographic breast density and compare them with observer-based scores in a large cohort of women. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Following written informed consent, a data set of 36 281 mammograms from 8867 women were collected from six United Kingdom centers in an ethically approved trial. Breast density was assessed by one of 26 readers on a visual analog scale and with two automated density tools. Mean differences were calculated as the mean of all the individual percentage differences between each measurement for each case (woman). Agreement in total breast volume, fibroglandular volume, and percentage density was assessed with the Bland-Altman method. Association with observer's scores was calculated by using the Pearson correlation coefficient (r). RESULTS: Correlation between the Quantra and Volpara outputs for total breast volume was r = 0.97 (P < .001), with a mean difference of 43.5 cm(3) for all cases representing 5.0% of the mean total breast volume. Correlation of the two measures was lower for fibroglandular volume (r = 0.86, P < .001). The mean difference was 30.3 cm(3) for all cases representing 21.2% of the mean fibroglandular tissue volume result. Quantra gave the larger value and the difference tended to increase with volume. For the two measures of percentage volume density, the mean difference was 1.61 percentage points (r = 0.78, P < .001). Comparison of observer's scores with the area-based density given by Quantra yielded a low correlation (r = 0.55, P < .001). Correlations of observer's scores with the volumetric density results gave r values of 0.60 (P < .001) and 0.63 (P < .001) for Quantra and Volpara, respectively. CONCLUSION: Automated techniques for measuring breast density show good correlation, but these are poorly correlated with observer's scores. However automated techniques do give different results that should be considered when informing patient personalized imaging. (©) RSNA, 2015 Clinical trial registration no. ISRCTN 73467396.Supported by the National Institute for Health Research’s Health Technology Assessment Programme.This is the final version of the article. It first appeared at http://pubs.rsna.org/doi/full/10.1148/radiol.1414150

Mammographic density. Measurement of mammographic density

Mammographic density has been strongly associated with increased risk of breast cancer. Furthermore, density is inversely correlated with the accuracy of mammography and, therefore, a measurement of density conveys information about the difficulty of detecting cancer in a mammogram. Initial methods for assessing mammographic density were entirely subjective and qualitative; however, in the past few years methods have been developed to provide more objective and quantitative density measurements. Research is now underway to create and validate techniques for volumetric measurement of density. It is also possible to measure breast density with other imaging modalities, such as ultrasound and MRI, which do not require the use of ionizing radiation and may, therefore, be more suitable for use in young women or where it is desirable to perform measurements more frequently. In this article, the techniques for measurement of density are reviewed and some consideration is given to their strengths and limitations

Semi-automated and fully automated mammographic density measurement and breast cancer risk prediction

The task of breast density quantification is becoming increasingly relevant due to its association with breast cancer risk. In this work, a semi-automated and a fully automated tools to assess breast density from full-field digitized mammograms are presented. The first tool is based on a supervised interactive thresholding procedure for segmenting dense from fatty tissue and is used with a twofold goal: for assessing mammographic density(MD) in a more objective and accurate way than via visual-based methods and for labeling the mammograms that are later employed to train the fully automated tool. Although most automated methods rely on supervised approaches based on a global labeling of the mammogram, the proposed method relies on pixel-level labeling, allowing better tissue classification and density measurement on a continuous scale. The fully automated method presented combines a classification scheme based on local features and thresholding operations that improve the performance of the classifier. A dataset of 655 mammograms was used to test the concordance of both approaches in measuring MD. Three expert radiologists measured MD in each of the mammograms using the semi-automated tool (DM-Scan). It was then measured by the fully automated system and the correlation between both methods was computed. The relation between MD and breast cancer was then analyzed using a case-control dataset consisting of 230 mammograms. The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) was used to compute reliability among raters and between techniques. The results obtained showed an average ICC = 0.922 among raters when using the semi-automated tool, whilst the average correlation between the semi-automated and automated measures was ICC = 0.838. In the case-control study, the results obtained showed Odds Ratios (OR) of 1.38 and 1.50 per 10% increase in MD when using the semi-automated and fully automated approaches respectively. It can therefore be concluded that the automated and semi-automated MD assessments present a good correlation. Both the methods also found an association between MD and breast cancer risk, which warrants the proposed tools for breast cancer risk prediction and clinical decision making. A full version of the DM-Scan is freely available. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.This work was supported by research grants from Gent per Gent Fund (EDEMAC Project); Spain's Health Research Fund (Fondo de Investigacion Santiaria) (PI060386 & FIS PS09/00790); Spanish MICINN grants TIN2009-14205-C04-02 and Consolider-Ingenio 2010: MIPRCV (CSD2007-00018); Spanish Federation of Breast Cancer Patients (Federacion Espanola de Cancer de Mama) (FECMA 485 EPY 1170-10). The English revision of this paper was funded by the Universitat Politecnica de Valencia, Spain.Llobet Azpitarte, R.; Pollán, M.; Antón Guirao, J.; Miranda-García, J.; Casals El Busto, M.; Martinez Gomez, I.; Ruiz Perales, F.... (2014). Semi-automated and fully automated mammographic density measurement and breast cancer risk prediction. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine. 116(2):105-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2014.01.021S105115116

The Short-Term Effect of Weight Loss Surgery on Volumetric Breast Density and Fibroglandular Volume

Purpose: Obesity and breast density are both associated with an increased risk of breast cancer and are potentially modifiable. Weight loss surgery (WLS) causes a significant reduction in the amount of body fat and a decrease in breast cancer risk. The effect of WLS on breast density and its components has not been documented. Here, we analyze the impact of WLS on volumetric breast density (VBD) and on each of its components (fibroglandular volume and breast volume) by using three-dimensional methods. Materials and Methods: Fibroglandular volume, breast volume, and their ratio, the VBD, were calculated from mammograms before and after WLS by using Volpara™ automated software. Results: For the 80 women included, average body mass index decreased from 46.0 ± 7.22 to 33.7 ± 7.06 kg/m2. Mammograms were performed on average 11.6 ± 9.4 months before and 10.1 ± 7 months after WLS. There was a significant reduction in average breast volume (39.4 % decrease) and average fibroglandular volume (15.5 % decrease), and thus, the average VBD increased from 5.15 to 7.87 % (p < 1 × 10−9) after WLS. When stratified by menopausal status and diabetic status, VBD increased significantly in all groups but only perimenopausal and postmenopausal women and non-diabetics experienced a significant reduction in fibroglandular volume. Conclusions: Breast volume and fibroglandular volume decreased, and VBD increased following WLS, with the most significant change observed in postmenopausal women and non-diabetics. Further studies are warranted to determine how physical and biological alterations in breast density components after WLS may impact breast cancer risk.ECU Open Access Publishing Support Fun

Correlation between mammographic density and volumetric fibroglandular tissue estimated on breast MR images

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/134976/1/mp8512.pd