This poster is published under an
open license. Please read the
disclaimer for further details.
Keywords:
Breast, Mammography, Technology assessment, Cancer
Authors:
C. Tromans1, R. Highnam1, O. Morrish2, R. Black2, L. Tucker2, F. J. Gilbert2; 1Wellington/NZ, 2Cambridge/UK
DOI:
10.1594/ecr2014/C-0363
Conclusion
Despite the significant implications of breast density in breast cancer screening,
few studies have investigated breast density assessments derived specifically from DBT images.
Tagliafico et al.
have compared several area-based density assessment methods for 2D mammograms and DBT projections.
Using a maximum entropy thresholding method,
the mean breast density was 11.4% higher on conventional mammography compared to the breast density obtained from the average density of the DBT projections [7].
Subsequent studies,
using semi-automated or fully-automated software,
demonstrated highly significant differences between the breast density measured on conventional mammograms and DBT,
with density measures on DBT tending to be lower than for the 2D images [8,
9].
In the present study,
automated volumetric breast density estimations showed very good correlations between the 2D and 3D mammograms.
This is especially important for sites that are transitioning to DBT,
and whose patients may only have prior 2D mammograms.
These results also have additional implications for those wanting to monitor longitudinal changes in breast density (e.g.
in response to pharmacological agents,
such as tamoxifen) or for studies looking at breast density as a breast cancer risk factor. Additionally,
for sites wanting to implement the C-View module,
to replace conventional mammography,
automated volumetric methods can ensure consistency in breast density measures.
Automated volumetric breast density methods are a promising alternative to visually assessed breast density assessments,
and produce reliable and objective breast density estimations from both raw conventional mammograms and raw DBT projections.