Institute of Anatomy, Department of Experimental Medicine, University of Genoa, Largo Rosanna Benzi 8, 16132 Genoa, Italy.
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013 Feb;138(1):311-7. doi: 10.1007/s10549-013-2419-z. Epub 2013 Jan 22.
Given the increasingly important role of breast density as an independent risk factor for breast cancer, and the variable breast imaging tests that potentially provide measures for density. We compared breast tissue density on digital mammography (FFDM), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) using semi-automated automated software. These three imaging modalities have not been previously directly compared for estimating breast tissue density. Following informed consent from all participating women, FFDM, DBT, and MRI were performed. Breast percentage density was calculated with semi-automated software, and compared, for all three imaging modalities. 48 patients (mean age, 41 years; range, 35-67 years) underwent FFDM, DBT, and MRI. Percent FFDM, DBT, and MRI breast density measures showed a positive linear correlation, (r = 0.95 for MRI and DBT, P < 0.0001; r = 0.97, P < 0.0001 for FFDM and DBT; r = 0.87 for FFDM and MRI). Linear regression analysis related to MRI and DBT had a high r (2) = 0.89 (95 % CI = 0.88-0.99, P < 0.001). FFDM overestimated breast density in 15.1 % in comparison to DBT and in 16.2 % in comparison to MRI, or conversely each of DBT and MRI underestimated density (relative to FFDM) by 15.1 or 16.2 %, respectively. Differences in percentage breast density between FFDM and DBT, and between FFDM and MRI, were highly significant (P < 0.0001). Differences in percentage breast density between DBT and MRI were not significant (P > 0.05). Breast density measures using FFDM, DBT, or MRI were generally well-correlated, although differences were noted between estimates when comparing FFDM and DBT, and for estimates comparing FFDM and MRI. No signficant differences in percentage density were observed when comparing DBT and MRI. Our work highlight that differences between FFDM, DBT, and MRI should be considered when measuring percentage breast density.
鉴于乳腺密度作为乳腺癌独立危险因素的作用日益重要,以及潜在提供密度测量的各种乳腺影像学检查,我们使用半自动自动化软件比较了数字乳腺 X 线摄影(FFDM)、数字乳腺断层合成术(DBT)和磁共振成像(MRI)的乳腺组织密度。这三种影像学检查方式以前没有直接比较过估计乳腺组织密度。在所有参与的女性知情同意后,进行了 FFDM、DBT 和 MRI。使用半自动软件计算乳腺百分比密度,并比较了这三种影像学方式。48 例患者(平均年龄 41 岁;范围 35-67 岁)接受了 FFDM、DBT 和 MRI。FFDM、DBT 和 MRI 乳腺密度测量值呈正线性相关(r=0.95 与 DBT,P<0.0001;r=0.97,P<0.0001 与 DBT;r=0.87 与 MRI)。与 MRI 和 DBT 相关的线性回归分析具有高 r(2)=0.89(95%置信区间为 0.88-0.99,P<0.001)。FFDM 与 DBT 相比高估了 15.1%的乳腺密度,与 MRI 相比高估了 16.2%的乳腺密度,或者相反,DBT 和 MRI 分别低估了(相对于 FFDM)15.1%或 16.2%的乳腺密度。FFDM 与 DBT 之间和 FFDM 与 MRI 之间的乳腺密度百分比差异具有高度显著性(P<0.0001)。DBT 与 MRI 之间的乳腺密度百分比差异无显著性(P>0.05)。使用 FFDM、DBT 或 MRI 的乳腺密度测量值通常相关性良好,尽管在比较 FFDM 和 DBT 时和比较 FFDM 和 MRI 时注意到估计值之间存在差异。比较 DBT 和 MRI 时,百分比密度没有显著差异。我们的工作强调,在测量乳腺百分比密度时,应考虑 FFDM、DBT 和 MRI 之间的差异。