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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gennaro, Gisella, Hill, Melissa L., Bezzon, Elisabetta, Caumo, Francesca
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