A comparative study of volumetric breast density estimation in digital mammography and magnetic resonance imaging: results from a high-risk population

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Despina Kontos ◽  
Ye Xing ◽  
Predrag R. Bakic ◽  
Emily F. Conant ◽  
Andrew D. A. Maidment
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
Density Estimation ◽  
Breast Density ◽  
Digital Mammography ◽  
High Risk Population ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Imaging Results

scholarly journals The relationship of breast density in mammography and magnetic resonance imaging in high-risk women and women with breast cancer

2015 ◽  
Vol 39 (6) ◽  
pp. 987-992 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marissa Albert ◽  
Freya Schnabel ◽  
Jennifer Chun ◽  
Shira Schwartz ◽  
Jiyon Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Breast Density ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
High Risk Women ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Relationship

scholarly journals Triple-Modality Screening Trial for Familial Breast Cancer Underlines the Importance of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Questions the Role of Mammography and Ultrasound Regardless of Patient Mutation Status, Age, and Breast Density

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (10) ◽  
pp. 1128-1135 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher C. Riedl ◽  
Nikolaus Luft ◽  
Clemens Bernhart ◽  
Michael Weber ◽  
Maria Bernathova ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Breast Density ◽  
Familial Breast Cancer ◽  
Ductal Carcinoma ◽  
Added Value ◽  
High Risk Population ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Mutation Status

Purpose To evaluate the breast cancer screening efficacy of mammography, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in a high-risk population and in various population subgroups. Patients and Methods In a single-center, prospective, nonrandomized comparison study, BRCA mutation carriers and women with a high familial risk (> 20% lifetime risk) for breast cancer were offered screening with mammography, ultrasound, and MRI every 12 months. Diagnostic performance was compared between individual modalities and their combinations. Further comparisons were based on subpopulations dichotomized by screening rounds, mutation status, age, and breast density. Results There were 559 women with 1,365 complete imaging rounds included in this study. The sensitivity of MRI (90.0%) was significantly higher (P < .001) than that of mammography (37.5%) and ultrasound (37.5%). Of 40 cancers, 18 (45.0%) were detected by MRI alone. Two cancers were found by mammography alone (a ductal carcinoma in situ [DCIS] with microinvasion and a DCIS with < 10-mm invasive areas). This did not lead to a significant increase of sensitivity compared with using MRI alone (P = .15). No cancers were detected by ultrasound alone. Similarly, of 14 DCISs, all were detected by MRI, whereas mammography and ultrasound each detected five DCISs (35.7%). Age, mutation status, and breast density had no influence on the sensitivity of MRI and did not affect the superiority of MRI over mammography and ultrasound. Conclusion MRI allows early detection of familial breast cancer regardless of patient age, breast density, or risk status. The added value of mammography is limited, and there is no added value of ultrasound in women undergoing MRI for screening.

scholarly journals Magnetic resonance imaging for secondary assessment of breast density in a high-risk cohort

2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 8-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine Klifa ◽  
Julio Carballido-Gamio ◽  
Lisa Wilmes ◽  
Anne Laprie ◽  
John Shepherd ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Breast Density ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
High Risk Cohort

Magnetic Resonance Imaging quantification of breast density in BRCA carriers following gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist (GnRHA)-based hormonal chemoprevention

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1506-1506
Author(s):  
C. Klifa ◽  
S. Sand ◽  
L. Vora ◽  
M. Press ◽  
A. Orisamolu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Breast Density ◽  
Breast Tissue ◽  
Quantitative Measure ◽  
Mammographic Breast Density ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Density Measure ◽  
Brca Carriers

1506 Background: Breast tissue density limits the usefulness of mammography as a surveillance tool in young women. Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) provides high tissue contrast and three-dimensional structural information not impaired by high breast density. We developed a volumetric “MR density” measure of breast structural composition that may be complementary to mammographic breast density. We tested this MR density measure in unaffected women with known high risk of breast cancer due to a BRCA gene mutation (or empiric risk > 30% lifetime), who were recruited in a phase II trial to study the effects of a hormonal chemoprevention regimen. Methods: Nine premenopausal high-risk women age 21 to 48 were treated with intranasal GnRHA (deslorelin), low-dose estradiol, and testosterone daily for 10 months. All patients underwent one contrast-enhanced breast MRI exam before and after treatment. We measured MR density as the ratio of fibroglandular tissue volume to total volume of the breast, at both time points. Our technique involved the semi-automated delineation of the breast and the automated segmentation of fibroglandular from adipose tissue. An “MR index” was also defined to quantify partial voluming effects due to the presence of adipose/fibroglandular edges in the MR data. Results: Eight out of nine patients showed a reduction in MR density (p = 0.026) with treatment. Three patients had less than 5% MR density at baseline, making it difficult to quantitate a change with treatment. All of the remaining six patients had reduced MR density after treatment (mean reduction 35.5%; p = 0.035). Conclusions: We have demonstrated the use of breast MR density as a robust volumetric quantitative measure of breast tissue composition. Our findings suggest that MR could be used to measure hormonal chemoprevention effects in BRCA carriers. [Table: see text]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document