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...
Main Authors: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |