Cargando…
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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8348046/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34362092 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10153309 |
_version_ | 1783735242043949056 |
---|---|
author | Gennaro, Gisella Hill, Melissa L. Bezzon, Elisabetta Caumo, Francesca |
author_facet | Gennaro, Gisella Hill, Melissa L. Bezzon, Elisabetta Caumo, Francesca |
author_sort | Gennaro, Gisella |
collection | PubMed |
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 (p = 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8348046 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-83480462021-08-08 Quantitative Breast Density in Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Gennaro, Gisella Hill, Melissa L. Bezzon, Elisabetta Caumo, Francesca J Clin Med Article 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 (p = 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. MDPI 2021-07-27 /pmc/articles/PMC8348046/ /pubmed/34362092 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10153309 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Gennaro, Gisella Hill, Melissa L. Bezzon, Elisabetta Caumo, Francesca Quantitative Breast Density in Contrast-Enhanced Mammography |
title | 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_short | Quantitative Breast Density in Contrast-Enhanced Mammography |
title_sort | quantitative breast density in contrast-enhanced mammography |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8348046/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34362092 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10153309 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT gennarogisella quantitativebreastdensityincontrastenhancedmammography AT hillmelissal quantitativebreastdensityincontrastenhancedmammography AT bezzonelisabetta quantitativebreastdensityincontrastenhancedmammography AT caumofrancesca quantitativebreastdensityincontrastenhancedmammography |