» Articles » PMID: 17671343

Computing Mammographic Density from a Multiple Regression Model Constructed with Image-acquisition Parameters from a Full-field Digital Mammographic Unit

Overview
Journal Phys Med Biol
Publisher IOP Publishing
Date 2007 Aug 3
PMID 17671343
Citations 10
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Breast density (the percentage of fibroglandular tissue in the breast) has been suggested to be a useful surrogate marker for breast cancer risk. It is conventionally measured using screen-film mammographic images by a labor-intensive histogram segmentation method (HSM). We have adapted and modified the HSM for measuring breast density from raw digital mammograms acquired by full-field digital mammography. Multiple regression model analyses showed that many of the instrument parameters for acquiring the screening mammograms (e.g. breast compression thickness, radiological thickness, radiation dose, compression force, etc) and image pixel intensity statistics of the imaged breasts were strong predictors of the observed threshold values (model R(2) = 0.93) and %-density (R(2) = 0.84). The intra-class correlation coefficient of the %-density for duplicate images was estimated to be 0.80, using the regression model-derived threshold values, and 0.94 if estimated directly from the parameter estimates of the %-density prediction regression model. Therefore, with additional research, these mathematical models could be used to compute breast density objectively, automatically bypassing the HSM step, and could greatly facilitate breast cancer research studies.

Citing Articles

Soy isoflavones decrease fibroglandular breast tissue measured by magnetic resonance imaging in premenopausal women: A 2-year randomized double-blind placebo controlled clinical trial.

Lu L, Chen N, Brunder D, Nayeem F, Nagamani M, Nishino T Clin Nutr ESPEN. 2022; 52:158-168.

PMID: 36513449 PMC: 9825101. DOI: 10.1016/j.clnesp.2022.10.007.


Breast parenchymal patterns in processed versus raw digital mammograms: A large population study toward assessing differences in quantitative measures across image representations.

Gastounioti A, Oustimov A, Keller B, Pantalone L, Hsieh M, Conant E Med Phys. 2016; 43(11):5862.

PMID: 27806604 PMC: 5055533. DOI: 10.1118/1.4963810.


The Impact of Acquisition Dose on Quantitative Breast Density Estimation with Digital Mammography: Results from ACRIN PA 4006.

Chen L, Ray S, Keller B, Pertuz S, McDonald E, Conant E Radiology. 2016; 280(3):693-700.

PMID: 27002418 PMC: 4988904. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2016151749.


A Review on Automatic Mammographic Density and Parenchymal Segmentation.

He W, Juette A, R E Denton E, Oliver A, Marti R, Zwiggelaar R Int J Breast Cancer. 2015; 2015:276217.

PMID: 26171249 PMC: 4481086. DOI: 10.1155/2015/276217.


Parenchymal texture analysis in digital mammography: A fully automated pipeline for breast cancer risk assessment.

Zheng Y, Keller B, Ray S, Wang Y, Conant E, Gee J Med Phys. 2015; 42(7):4149-60.

PMID: 26133615 PMC: 4474947. DOI: 10.1118/1.4921996.


References
1.
Highnam R, Brady M, English R . Detecting film-screen artifacts in mammography using a model-based approach. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2000; 18(10):1016-24. DOI: 10.1109/42.811313. View

2.
Klausz R, Shramchenko N . Dose to population as a metric in the design of optimised exposure control in digital mammography. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2005; 114(1-3):369-74. DOI: 10.1093/rpd/nch579. View

3.
Heine J, Velthuizen R . A statistical methodology for mammographic density detection. Med Phys. 2001; 27(12):2644-51. DOI: 10.1118/1.1323981. View

4.
Sivaramakrishna R, Obuchowski N, Chilcote W, Powell K . Automatic segmentation of mammographic density. Acad Radiol. 2001; 8(3):250-6. DOI: 10.1016/S1076-6332(03)80534-2. View

5.
Zhou C, Chan H, Petrick N, Helvie M, Goodsitt M, Sahiner B . Computerized image analysis: estimation of breast density on mammograms. Med Phys. 2001; 28(6):1056-69. DOI: 10.1118/1.1376640. View