Quantitative Breast Density in Contrast-Enhanced Mammography

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) demonstrates a potential role in personalized screening models, in particular for women at increased risk and women with dense breasts. In this study, volumetric breast density (VBD) measured in CEM images was compared with VBD obtained from digital mammography (D...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Gisella Gennaro, Melissa L. Hill, Elisabetta Bezzon, Francesca Caumo
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2021-07-01
Series:Journal of Clinical Medicine
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/10/15/3309
id doaj-9a2eca65793f4c7d974c699ec9a489da
record_format Article
spelling doaj-9a2eca65793f4c7d974c699ec9a489da2021-08-06T15:26:45ZengMDPI AGJournal of Clinical Medicine2077-03832021-07-01103309330910.3390/jcm10153309Quantitative Breast Density in Contrast-Enhanced MammographyGisella Gennaro0Melissa L. Hill1Elisabetta Bezzon2Francesca Caumo3Breast Radiology Department, Veneto Institute of Oncology (IRCCS), 35128 Padua, ItalyVolpara Health Technologies Ltd., Wellington 6011, New ZealandBreast Radiology Department, Veneto Institute of Oncology (IRCCS), 35128 Padua, ItalyBreast Radiology Department, Veneto Institute of Oncology (IRCCS), 35128 Padua, ItalyContrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) demonstrates a potential role in personalized screening models, in particular for women at increased risk and women with dense breasts. In this study, volumetric breast density (VBD) measured in CEM images was compared with VBD obtained from digital mammography (DM) or tomosynthesis (DBT) images. A total of 150 women who underwent CEM between March 2019 and December 2020, having at least a DM/DBT study performed before/after CEM, were included. Low-energy CEM (LE-CEM) and DM/DBT images were processed with automatic software to obtain the VBD. VBDs from the paired datasets were compared by Wilcoxon tests. A multivariate regression model was applied to analyze the relationship between VBD differences and multiple independent variables certainly or potentially affecting VBD. Median VBD was comparable for LE-CEM and DM/DBT (12.73% vs. 12.39%), not evidencing any statistically significant difference (<i>p</i> = 0.5855). VBD differences between LE-CEM and DM were associated with significant differences of glandular volume, breast thickness, compression force and pressure, contact area, and nipple-to-posterior-edge distance, i.e., variables reflecting differences in breast positioning (coefficient of determination 0.6023; multiple correlation coefficient 0.7761). Volumetric breast density was obtained from low-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography and was not significantly different from volumetric breast density measured from standard mammograms.https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/10/15/3309breast densitycontrast-enhanced mammographymammographytomosynthesis
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Gisella Gennaro
Melissa L. Hill
Elisabetta Bezzon
Francesca Caumo
spellingShingle Gisella Gennaro
Melissa L. Hill
Elisabetta Bezzon
Francesca Caumo
Quantitative Breast Density in Contrast-Enhanced Mammography
Journal of Clinical Medicine
breast density
contrast-enhanced mammography
mammography
tomosynthesis
author_facet Gisella Gennaro
Melissa L. Hill
Elisabetta Bezzon
Francesca Caumo
author_sort Gisella Gennaro
title Quantitative Breast Density in Contrast-Enhanced Mammography
title_short Quantitative Breast Density in Contrast-Enhanced Mammography
title_full Quantitative Breast Density in Contrast-Enhanced Mammography
title_fullStr Quantitative Breast Density in Contrast-Enhanced Mammography
title_full_unstemmed Quantitative Breast Density in Contrast-Enhanced Mammography
title_sort quantitative breast density in contrast-enhanced mammography
publisher MDPI AG
series Journal of Clinical Medicine
issn 2077-0383
publishDate 2021-07-01
description Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) demonstrates a potential role in personalized screening models, in particular for women at increased risk and women with dense breasts. In this study, volumetric breast density (VBD) measured in CEM images was compared with VBD obtained from digital mammography (DM) or tomosynthesis (DBT) images. A total of 150 women who underwent CEM between March 2019 and December 2020, having at least a DM/DBT study performed before/after CEM, were included. Low-energy CEM (LE-CEM) and DM/DBT images were processed with automatic software to obtain the VBD. VBDs from the paired datasets were compared by Wilcoxon tests. A multivariate regression model was applied to analyze the relationship between VBD differences and multiple independent variables certainly or potentially affecting VBD. Median VBD was comparable for LE-CEM and DM/DBT (12.73% vs. 12.39%), not evidencing any statistically significant difference (<i>p</i> = 0.5855). VBD differences between LE-CEM and DM were associated with significant differences of glandular volume, breast thickness, compression force and pressure, contact area, and nipple-to-posterior-edge distance, i.e., variables reflecting differences in breast positioning (coefficient of determination 0.6023; multiple correlation coefficient 0.7761). Volumetric breast density was obtained from low-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography and was not significantly different from volumetric breast density measured from standard mammograms.
topic breast density
contrast-enhanced mammography
mammography
tomosynthesis
url https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/10/15/3309
work_keys_str_mv AT gisellagennaro quantitativebreastdensityincontrastenhancedmammography
AT melissalhill quantitativebreastdensityincontrastenhancedmammography
AT elisabettabezzon quantitativebreastdensityincontrastenhancedmammography
AT francescacaumo quantitativebreastdensityincontrastenhancedmammography
_version_ 1721218178749562880