Dedicated breast CT: fibroglandular volume measurements in a diagnostic population.

PURPOSE To determine the mean and range of volumetric glandular fraction (VGF) of the breast in a diagnostic population using a high-resolution flat-panel cone-beam dedicated breast CT system. This information is important for Monte Carlo-based estimation of normalized glandular dose coefficients and for investigating the dependence of VGF on breast dimensions, race, and pathology. METHODS Image data from a clinical trial investigating the role of dedicated breast CT that enrolled 150 women were retrospectively analyzed to determine the VGF. The study was conducted in adherence to a protocol approved by the institutional human subjects review boards and written informed consent was obtained from all study participants. All participants in the study were assigned BI-RADS(®) 4 or 5 as per the American College of Radiology assessment categories after standard diagnostic work-up and underwent dedicated breast CT exam prior to biopsy. A Gaussian-kernel based fuzzy c-means algorithm was used to partition the breast CT images into adipose and fibroglandular tissue after segmenting the skin. Upon determination of the accuracy of the algorithm with a phantom, it was applied to 137 breast CT volumes from 136 women. VGF was determined for each breast and the mean and range were determined. Pathology results with classification as benign, malignant, and hyperplasia were available for 132 women, and were used to investigate if the distributions of VGF varied with pathology. RESULTS The algorithm was accurate to within ±1.9% in determining the volume of an irregular shaped phantom. The study mean (± inter-breast SD) for the VGF was 0.172 ± 0.142 (range: 0.012-0.719). VGF was found to be negatively correlated with age, breast dimensions (chest-wall to nipple length, pectoralis to nipple length, and effective diameter at chest-wall), and total breast volume, and positively correlated with fibroglandular volume. Based on pathology, pairwise statistical analysis (Mann-Whitney test) indicated that at the 0.05 significance level, there was no significant difference in distributions of VGF without adjustment for age between malignant and nonmalignant breasts (p = 0.41). Pairwise comparisons of the distributions of VGF in increasing order of mammographic breast density indicated all comparisons were statistically significant (p < 0.002). CONCLUSIONS This study used a different clinical prototype breast CT system than that in previous studies to image subjects from a different geographical region, and used a different algorithm for analysis of image data. The mean VGF estimated from this study is within the range reported in previous studies, indicating that the choice of 50% glandular weight fraction to represent an average breast for Monte Carlo-based estimation of normalized glandular dose coefficients in mammography needs revising. In the study, the distributions of VGF did not differ significantly with pathology.

[1]  N. Boyd,et al.  The quantitative analysis of mammographic densities. , 1994, Physics in medicine and biology.

[2]  N. Duric,et al.  Volumetric breast density evaluation from ultrasound tomography images. , 2008, Medical physics.

[3]  Jerry L Prince,et al.  Current methods in medical image segmentation. , 2000, Annual review of biomedical engineering.

[4]  J. Boone,et al.  Glandular breast dose for monoenergetic and high-energy X-ray beams: Monte Carlo assessment. , 1999, Radiology.

[5]  M. Giger,et al.  Computerized analysis of mammographic parenchymal patterns for breast cancer risk assessment: feature selection. , 2000, Medical physics.

[6]  Kai Yang,et al.  The characterization of breast anatomical metrics using dedicated breast CT. , 2011, Medical physics.

[7]  Berkman Sahiner,et al.  Correlation between mammographic density and volumetric fibroglandular tissue estimated on breast MR images. , 2004, Medical physics.

[8]  Carri K Glide-Hurst,et al.  A new method for quantitative analysis of mammographic density. , 2007, Medical physics.

[9]  Min-Ying Su,et al.  Comparison of breast density measured on MR images acquired using fat-suppressed versus nonfat-suppressed sequences. , 2011, Medical physics.

[10]  A. Miller,et al.  Quantitative classification of mammographic densities and breast cancer risk: results from the Canadian National Breast Screening Study. , 1995, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[11]  Miin-Shen Yang,et al.  Alternative c-means clustering algorithms , 2002, Pattern Recognit..

[12]  M. Stella Atkins,et al.  Fully automatic segmentation of the brain in MRI , 1998, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[13]  J. Boone,et al.  The effect of skin thickness determined using breast CT on mammographic dosimetry. , 2008, Medical physics.

[14]  Stephen J Glick,et al.  Normalized glandular dose (DgN) coefficients for flat-panel CT breast imaging. , 2004, Physics in medicine and biology.

[15]  R.J. Hathaway,et al.  Kernelized Non-Euclidean Relational Fuzzy c-Means Algorithm , 2005, The 14th IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems, 2005. FUZZ '05..

[16]  Maryellen L. Giger,et al.  A Fuzzy C-Means (FCM)-Based Approach for Computerized Segmentation of Breast Lesions in Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MR Images1 , 2006 .

[17]  Ruola Ning,et al.  Cone-beam CT for breast imaging: Radiation dose, breast coverage, and image quality. , 2010, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[18]  J. Norbeck,et al.  Association between mammographic parenchymal pattern classification and incidence of breast cancer , 1980, Cancer.

[19]  Dao-Qiang Zhang,et al.  Clustering Incomplete Data Using Kernel-Based Fuzzy C-means Algorithm , 2003, Neural Processing Letters.

[20]  T R Nelson,et al.  A comprehensive analysis of DgN(CT) coefficients for pendant-geometry cone-beam breast computed tomography. , 2004, Medical physics.

[21]  J. Wolfe.  Breast patterns as an index of risk for developing breast cancer. , 1976, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[22]  Ruola Ning,et al.  NPS characterization and evaluation of a cone beam CT breast imaging system. , 2009, Journal of X-ray science and technology.

[23]  Srinivasan Vedantham,et al.  Dedicated breast CT: radiation dose for circle-plus-line trajectory. , 2012, Medical physics.

[24]  V. McCormack,et al.  Breast Density and Parenchymal Patterns as Markers of Breast Cancer Risk: A Meta-analysis , 2006, Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention.

[25]  M J Yaffe,et al.  The myth of the 50-50 breast. , 2009, Medical physics.

[26]  Daniel B Kopans,et al.  Basic physics and doubts about relationship between mammographically determined tissue density and breast cancer risk. , 2008, Radiology.

[27]  N. Boyd,et al.  Mammographic density and breast cancer risk: current understanding and future prospects , 2011, Breast Cancer Research.

[28]  Ioannis Sechopoulos,et al.  Dosimetric characterization of a dedicated breast computed tomography clinical prototype. , 2010, Medical physics.

[29]  Russell M. Mersereau,et al.  Automatic detection of brain contours in MRI data sets. , 1993, IEEE transactions on medical imaging.

[30]  M. Yaffe.  Mammographic density. Measurement of mammographic density , 2008, Breast Cancer Research.

[31]  A. Wakhloo,et al.  Neurovascular Modeling: Small-Batch Manufacturing of Silicone Vascular Replicas , 2009, American Journal of Neuroradiology.

[32]  Norman Boyd,et al.  Mammographic Density and Breast Cancer Risk: Evaluation of a Novel Method of Measuring Breast Tissue Volumes , 2009, Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention.

[33]  John M Boone,et al.  Classification of breast computed tomography data. , 2008, Medical physics.

[34]  L. Feldkamp,et al.  Practical cone-beam algorithm , 1984 .