Display options
Share it on

Biomed Phys Eng Express. 2015;1(4). doi: 10.1088/2057-1976/1/4/045202. Epub 2015 Oct 27.

Digital Breast Tomosynthesis guided Near Infrared Spectroscopy: Volumetric estimates of fibroglandular fraction and breast density from tomosynthesis reconstructions.

Biomedical physics & engineering express

Srinivasan Vedantham, Linxi Shi, Kelly E Michaelsen, Venkataramanan Krishnaswamy, Brian W Pogue, Steven P Poplack, Andrew Karellas, Keith D Paulsen

Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA 01655, USA.
  2. Thayer School of Engineering, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755, USA.
  3. Department of Radiology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH 03756, USA.
  4. Thayer School of Engineering, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755, USA; Department of Radiology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH 03756, USA.

PMID: 26941961 PMCID: PMC4771071 DOI: 10.1088/2057-1976/1/4/045202

Abstract

A multimodality system combining a clinical prototype digital breast tomosynthesis with its imaging geometry modified to facilitate near-infrared spectroscopic imaging has been developed. The accuracy of parameters recovered from near-infrared spectroscopy is dependent on fibroglandular tissue content. Hence, in this study, volumetric estimates of fibroglandular tissue from tomosynthesis reconstructions were determined. A kernel-based fuzzy c-means algorithm was implemented to segment tomosynthesis reconstructed slices in order to estimate fibroglandular content and to provide anatomic priors for near-infrared spectroscopy. This algorithm was used to determine volumetric breast density (VBD), defined as the ratio of fibroglandular tissue volume to the total breast volume, expressed as percentage, from 62 tomosynthesis reconstructions of 34 study participants. For a subset of study participants who subsequently underwent mammography, VBD from mammography matched for subject, breast laterality and mammographic view was quantified using commercial software and statistically analyzed to determine if it differed from tomosynthesis. Summary statistics of the VBD from all study participants were compared with prior independent studies. The fibroglandular volume from tomosynthesis and mammography were not statistically different (

Keywords: Breast Density; Breast [A01.236]; Digital Breast Tomosynthesis; Mammography [E01.370.350.700.500]; Near-Infrared [E01.370.350.750]; Spectroscopy

References

  1. J Biomed Opt. 2005 Sep-Oct;10(5):051504 - PubMed
  2. Med Phys. 2013 Mar;40(3):031913 - PubMed
  3. Radiology. 2012 Mar;262(3):788-96 - PubMed
  4. Radiology. 2012 Apr;263(1):35-42 - PubMed
  5. J Clin Imaging Sci. 2014 Nov 29;4:64 - PubMed
  6. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2011;2011:6188-91 - PubMed
  7. Eur Radiol. 2012 Jun;22(6):1265-70 - PubMed
  8. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Jun 6;103(23):8828-33 - PubMed
  9. Med Phys. 2009 Dec;36(12 ):5437-43 - PubMed
  10. Med Phys. 2012 Jul;39(7):4579-87 - PubMed
  11. Phys Med Biol. 2007 Jun 21;52(12):3619-41 - PubMed
  12. Br J Radiol. 2013 Nov;86(1031):20130255 - PubMed
  13. Breast Cancer Res. 2011;13(6):R132 - PubMed
  14. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2011 Jul;20(7):1473-82 - PubMed
  15. Eur Radiol. 2013 Aug;23 (8):2087-94 - PubMed
  16. Cancer. 1991 Jun 1;67(11):2833-8 - PubMed
  17. Med Phys. 2008 Mar;35(3):1078-86 - PubMed
  18. PLoS One. 2014 Jun 03;9(6):e99027 - PubMed
  19. Radiology. 2009 Jul;252(1):40-9 - PubMed
  20. Appl Opt. 2003 Jun 1;42(16):3117-28 - PubMed
  21. Radiology. 2015 May;275(2):366-76 - PubMed
  22. Med Phys. 2007 Jan;34(1):221-32 - PubMed
  23. Radiology. 2011 Oct;261(1):80-91 - PubMed
  24. Med Phys. 2012 Dec;39(12 ):7317-28 - PubMed
  25. Lancet. 2005 May 14-20;365(9472):1727-41 - PubMed
  26. Radiology. 1997 Nov;205(2):399-406 - PubMed
  27. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013 Jun;200(6):1401-8 - PubMed
  28. Radiology. 2013 Jan;266(1):104-13 - PubMed
  29. Acad Radiol. 2000 Dec;7(12 ):1085-97 - PubMed
  30. Radiology. 2007 May;243(2):350-9 - PubMed
  31. Appl Opt. 2003 Sep 1;42(25):5181-90 - PubMed
  32. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2009 Jan;28(1):30-42 - PubMed
  33. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2007 Jan;16(1):43-9 - PubMed
  34. Acad Radiol. 2001 Mar;8(3):219-24 - PubMed
  35. Radiology. 2011 Jan;258(1):89-97 - PubMed
  36. Lancet Oncol. 2013 Jun;14 (7):583-9 - PubMed
  37. Radiology. 2013 Apr;267(1):47-56 - PubMed
  38. Med Phys. 2008 Apr;35(4):1199-206 - PubMed
  39. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1995 May 3;87(9):670-5 - PubMed
  40. JAMA. 2014 Jun 25;311(24):2499-507 - PubMed
  41. Radiology. 2002 Oct;225(1):165-75 - PubMed
  42. Br J Radiol. 2012 Nov;85(1019):e1074-82 - PubMed
  43. Breast J. 2014 Nov-Dec;20(6):592-605 - PubMed
  44. J Biomed Opt. 2006 May-Jun;11(3):33001 - PubMed
  45. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006 Jun;15(6):1159-69 - PubMed
  46. Opt Lett. 2007 Apr 15;32(8):933-5 - PubMed
  47. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013 Feb;138(1):311-7 - PubMed
  48. Opt Express. 2012 Aug 13;20(17):19125-36 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support