» Articles » PMID: 26849841

Optical Mammography: Bilateral Breast Symmetry in Hemoglobin Saturation Maps

Overview
Journal J Biomed Opt
Date 2016 Feb 6
PMID 26849841
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

We present a study of the bilateral symmetry of human breast hemoglobin saturation maps measured with a broadband optical mammography instrument. We have imaged 21 patients with unilateral breast cancer, 32 patients with unilateral benign lesions, and 27 healthy patients. An image registration process was applied to the bilateral hemoglobin saturation (SO 2 SO2 ) images by assigning each pixel to the low, middle, or high range of SO 2 SO2 values, where the thresholds for the categories were the 15th and 85th percentiles of the individual saturation range. The Dice coefficient, which is a measure of similarity, was calculated for each patient’s pair of right and left breast SO 2 SO2 images. The invasive cancer patients were found to have an average Dice coefficient value of 0.55±0.07 0.55±0.07 , which was significantly lower than the benign and healthy groups (0.61±0.11 0.61±0.11 and 0.62±0.12 0.62±0.12 , respectively). Although differences were seen in a group analysis, the healthy patient Dice coefficients spanned a wide range, limiting the diagnostic capabilities of this SO 2 SO2 symmetry analysis on an individual basis. Our results suggest that for assessing the SO 2 SO2 contrast of breast lesions, it may be better to select a reference tissue in the ipsilateral rather than the contralateral breast.

References
1.
Intes X . Time-domain optical mammography SoftScan: initial results. Acad Radiol. 2005; 12(8):934-47. DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2005.05.006. View

2.
Spinelli L, Torricelli A, Pifferi A, Taroni P, Danesini G, Cubeddu R . Characterization of female breast lesions from multi-wavelength time-resolved optical mammography. Phys Med Biol. 2005; 50(11):2489-502. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/50/11/004. View

3.
Sallam M, Bowyer K . Registration and difference analysis of corresponding mammogram images. Med Image Anal. 2000; 3(2):103-18. DOI: 10.1016/s1361-8415(99)80001-2. View

4.
Price E, Joe B, Sickles E . The developing asymmetry: revisiting a perceptual and diagnostic challenge. Radiology. 2015; 274(3):642-51. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.14132759. View

5.
Zheng B, Chang Y, Gur D . Computerized detection of masses from digitized mammograms: comparison of single-image segmentation and bilateral-image subtraction. Acad Radiol. 1995; 2(12):1056-61. DOI: 10.1016/s1076-6332(05)80513-6. View