Rapid breast density analysis of partial volumes of automated breast ultrasound images

Comparative Analysis of Diagnostic Performance of Automatic Breast Ultrasound, Full-Field Digital Mammography and Contrast-Enhanced Mammography in Relation to Breast Composition

This single center study includes a comparative analysis of the diagnostic performance of full-field digital mammography (FFDM), contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and automatic breast ultrasound (ABUS) in the group of patients with breast American College of Radiology (ACR) categories C and D as well as A and B with FFDM. The study involved 297 patients who underwent ABUS and FFDM. Breast types C and D were determined in 40% of patients with FFDM and low- energy CEM. CEM was performed on 76 patients. Focal lesions were found in 131 patients, of which 115 were histopathologically verified. The number of lesions detected in patients with multiple lesions were 40 from 48 with ABUS, 13 with FFDM and 21 with CEM. Compliance in determining the number of foci was 82% for FFDM and 91% for both CEM and ABUS. In breast types C and D, 72% of all lesions were found with ABUS, 56% with CEM and 29% with FFDM (p = 0.008, p = 0.000); all invasive cancers were diagnosed with ABUS, 83% with CEM and 59% with FFDM (p = 0.000, p = 0.023); 100% DCIS were diagnosed with ABUS, 93% with CEM and 59% with FFDM. The size of lesions from histopathology in breast ACR categories A and B was 14-26 mm, while in breast categories C and D was 11-37 mm. In breast categories C and D, sensitivity of ABUS, FFDM and CEM was, respectively, 78.05, 85.37, 92.68; specificity: 40, 13.33, 8.33; PPV (positive predictive value): 78.05, 72.92, 77.55; NPV (negative predictive value): 40, 25, 25, accuracy: 67.86, 66.07, 73.58. In breast categories A and B, sensitivity of ABUS, FFDM and CEM was, respectively, 81.25, 93.75, 93.48; specificity: 18.18, 18.18, 16.67; PPV: 81.25, 83.33, 89.58; NPV: 18.18, 40, 25; accuracy: 69.49, 79.66, 84.62. The sensitivity of the combination of FFDM and ABUS was 100 for all types of breast categories; the accuracy was 75 in breast types C and D and 81.36 in breast types A and B. The study confirms the predominance of C and D breast anatomy types and the low diagnostic performance of FFDM within that group and indicates ABUS and CEM as potential additive methods in breast cancer diagnostics.

Automated whole breast segmentation for hand-held ultrasound with position information: Application to breast density estimation

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Women with higher breast densities have a relatively higher risk to be diagnosed with breast cancer. Hand-held ultrasound (HHUS) can provide precise screening results and detect masses in dense breasts. However, its lack of position information and automatic extraction of breast area hinder the implementation of density estimation. To facilitate reliable breast density evaluation, this study proposed an upgraded version of our whole-breast ultrasound (WBUS) system, which not only can provide precise position information, but also can extract precise breast area automatically based on deep learning method.

METHODS

WBUS images with probe position information were collected from 117 women. For each case, an automatic breast region segmentation by DeepResUnet was conducted, then fibroglandular tissues were extracted from breast region using fuzzy c-mean (FCM) classifier. Finally, the percentage of breast density and breast area of the DeepResUnet predicted region and the breast region of the ground truth were calculated and compared.

RESULTS

The average and standard deviation of each breast case for DeepResUnet predicted breast region of 10-fold in Accuracy (ACC) was 0.963±0.054. Sensitivity (SENS) was 0.928±0.11. Specificity (SPEC) was 0.967±0.054. Dice coefficient (Dice) was 0.916±0.98. Region intersection over union (IoU) was 0.856±0.134. Significant and very high correlations of breast density, fibroglandular tissue area and breast area (R = 0.843, R= 0.822 and R = 0.984, all p values < 0.001) were found between the ground truth and the result of the proposed method for ultrasound images.

CONCLUSIONS

Breast density, fibroglandular tissue, and breast volume evaluated based on the proposed method and WBUS system have significant correlations with ground truth, indicating that the proposed method and WBUS system has the potential to be an alternative modality for breast screening and density estimation in clinical use.

Evaluation of breast stiffness measured by ultrasound and breast density measured by MRI using a prone-supine deformation model

Background

This study evaluated breast tissue stiffness measured by ultrasound elastography and the percent breast density measured by magnetic resonance imaging to understand their relationship.

Methods

Magnetic resonance imaging and whole breast ultrasound were performed in 20 patients with suspicious lesions. Only the contralateral normal breasts were analyzed. Breast tissue stiffness was measured from the echogenic homogeneous fibroglandular tissues in the central breast area underneath the nipple. An automatic, computer algorithm-based, segmentation method was used to segment the whole breast and fibroglandular tissues on three dimensional magnetic resonanceimaging. A finite element model was applied to deform the prone magnetic resonance imaging to match the supine ultrasound images, by using the inversed gravity loaded transformation. After deformation, the tissue level used in ultrasound elastography measurement could be estimated on the deformed supine magnetic resonance imaging to measure the breast density in the corresponding tissue region.

Results

The mean breast tissue stiffness was 2.3 ± 0.8 m/s. The stiffness was not correlated with age (r = 0.29). Overall, there was no positive correlation between breast stiffness and breast volume (r = - 0.14), or the whole breast percent density (r = - 0.09). There was also no correlation between breast stiffness and the local percent density measured from the corresponding region (r = - 0.12).

Conclusions

The lack of correlation between breast stiffness measured by ultrasound and the whole breast or local percent density measured by magnetic resonance imaging suggests that breast stiffness is not solely related to the amount of fibroglandular tissue. Further studies are needed to investigate whether they are dependent or independent cancer risk factors.

Breast density implications and supplemental screening

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has been widely implemented in place of 2D mammography, although it is less effective in women with extremely dense breasts. Breast ultrasound detects additional early-stage, invasive breast cancers when combined with mammography; however, its relevant limitations, including the shortage of trained operators, operator dependence and small field of view, have limited its widespread implementation. Automated breast sonography (ABS) is a promising technique but the time to interpret and false-positive rates need to be improved. Supplemental screening with contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in high-risk women reduces late-stage disease; abbreviated MRI protocols may reduce cost and increase accessibility to women of average risk with dense breasts. Contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) and molecular breast imaging improve cancer detection but require further validation for screening and direct biopsy guidance should be implemented for any screening modality. This article reviews the status of screening women with dense breasts. KEY POINTS: • The sensitivity of mammography is reduced in women with dense breasts. Supplemental screening with US detects early-stage, invasive breast cancers. • Tomosynthesis reduces recall rate and increases cancer detection rate but is less effective in women with extremely dense breasts. • Screening MRI improves early diagnosis of breast cancer more than ultrasound and is currently recommended for women at high risk. Risk assessment is needed, to include breast density, to ascertain who should start early annual MRI screening.

Automated Breast Ultrasonography (ABUS) in the Screening and Diagnostic Setting: Indications and Practical Use

Automated breast ultrasonography (ABUS) is a new imaging technology for automatic breast scanning through ultrasound. It was first developed to overcome the limitation of operator dependency and lack of standardization and reproducibility of handheld ultrasound. ABUS provides a three-dimensional representation of breast tissue and allows images reformatting in three planes, and the generated coronal plane has been suggested to improve diagnostic accuracy. This technique has been first used in the screening setting to improve breast cancer detection, especially in mammographically dense breasts. In recent years, numerous studies also evaluated its use in the diagnostic setting: they showed its suitability for breast cancer staging, evaluation of tumor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and second-look ultrasound after magnetic resonance imaging. The purpose of this article is to provide a comprehensive review of the current body of literature about the clinical performance of ABUS, summarize available evidence, and identify gaps in knowledge for future research.

Quantitative breast density analysis using tomosynthesis and comparison with MRI and digital mammography

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Breast density at mammography has been used as markers of breast cancer risk. However, newly introduced tomosynthesis and computer-aided quantitative method could provide more reliable breast density evaluation.

METHODS

In the experiment, 98 tomosynthesis image volumes were obtained from 98 women. For each case, an automatic skin removal was used and followed by a fuzzy c-mean (FCM) classifier which separated the fibroglandular tissues from other tissues in breast area. Finally, percent of breast density and breast volume were calculated and the results were compared with MRI. In addition, the percent of breast density and breast area of digital mammography calculated using the software Cumulus (University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.) were also compared with 3-D modalities.

RESULTS

Percent of breast density and breast volume, which were computed from tomosynthesis, MRI and digital mammography were 17.37% ± 4.39% and 607.12 cm³ ± 323.01 cm³, 20.3% ± 8.6% and 537.59 cm³ ± 287.74 cm³, and 12.03% ± 4.08%, respectively. There were significant correlations on breast density as well as volume between tomosynthesis and MRI (R = 0.482 and R = 0.805), tomosynthesis and breast density with breast area of digital mammography (R = 0.789 and R = 0.877), and MRI and breast density with breast area of digital mammography (R = 0.482 and R = 0.857) (all P values < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Breast density and breast volume evaluated from tomosynthesis, MRI and breast density and breast area of digital mammographic images have significant correlations and indicate that tomosynthesis could provide useful 3-D information on breast density through proposed method.

Breast density: why all the fuss?

The term "breast density" or mammographic density (MD) denotes those components of breast parenchyma visualised at mammography that are denser than adipose tissue. MD is composed of a mixture of epithelial and stromal components, notably collagen, in variable proportions. MD is most commonly assessed in clinical practice with the time-honoured method of visual estimation of area-based percent density (PMD) on a mammogram, with categorisation into quartiles. The computerised semi-automated thresholding method, Cumulus, also yielding area-based percent density, is widely used for research purposes; however, the advent of fully automated volumetric methods developed as a consequence of the widespread use of digital mammography (DM) and yielding both absolute and percent dense volumes, has resulted in an explosion of interest in MD recently. Broadly, the importance of MD is twofold: firstly, the presence of marked MD significantly reduces mammographic sensitivity for breast cancer, even with state-of-the-art DM. Recognition of this led to the formation of a powerful lobby group ('Are You Dense') in the US, as a consequence of which 32 states have legislated for mandatory disclosure of MD to women undergoing mammography. Secondly, it is now widely accepted that MD is in itself a risk factor for breast cancer, with a four-to sixfold increased relative risk in women with PMD in the highest quintile compared to those with PMD in the lowest quintile. Consequently, major research efforts are underway to assess whether use of MD could provide a major step forward towards risk-adapted, personalised breast cancer prevention, imaging, and treatment.

Breast Density Analysis with Automated Whole-Breast Ultrasound: Comparison with 3-D Magnetic Resonance Imaging

In this study, a semi-automatic breast segmentation method was proposed on the basis of the rib shadow to extract breast regions from 3-D automated whole-breast ultrasound (ABUS) images. The density results were correlated with breast density values acquired with 3-D magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). MRI images of 46 breasts were collected from 23 women without a history of breast disease. Each subject also underwent ABUS. We used Otsu's thresholding method on ABUS images to obtain local rib shadow information, which was combined with the global rib shadow information (extracted from all slice projections) and integrated with the anatomy's breast tissue structure to determine the chest wall line. The fuzzy C-means classifier was used to extract the fibroglandular tissues from the acquired images. Whole-breast volume (WBV) and breast percentage density (BPD) were calculated in both modalities. Linear regression was used to compute the correlation of density results between the two modalities. The consistency of density measurement was also analyzed on the basis of intra- and inter-operator variation. There was a high correlation of density results between MRI and ABUS (R(2) = 0.798 for WBV, R(2) = 0.825 for PBD). The mean WBV from ABUS images was slightly smaller than the mean WBV from MR images (MRI: 342.24 ± 128.08 cm(3), ABUS: 325.47 ± 136.16 cm(3), p < 0.05). In addition, the BPD calculated from MR images was smaller than the BPD from ABUS images (MRI: 24.71 ± 15.16%, ABUS: 28.90 ± 17.73%, p < 0.05). The intra-operator and inter-operator variant analysis results indicated that there was no statistically significant difference in breast density measurement variation between the two modalities. Our results revealed a high correlation in WBV and BPD between MRI and ABUS. Our study suggests that ABUS provides breast density information useful in the assessment of breast health.

Imaging Breast Density: Established and Emerging Modalities

Mammographic density has been proven as an independent risk factor for breast cancer. Women with dense breast tissue visible on a mammogram have a much higher cancer risk than women with little density. A great research effort has been devoted to incorporate breast density into risk prediction models to better estimate each individual’s cancer risk. In recent years, the passage of breast density notification legislation in many states in USA requires that every mammography report should provide information regarding the patient’s breast density. Accurate definition and measurement of breast density are thus important, which may allow all the potential clinical applications of breast density to be implemented. Because the two-dimensional mammography-based measurement is subject to tissue overlapping and thus not able to provide volumetric information, there is an urgent need to develop reliable quantitative measurements of breast density. Various new imaging technologies are being developed. Among these new modalities, volumetric mammographic density methods and three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging are the most well studied. Besides, emerging modalities, including different x-ray–based, optical imaging, and ultrasound-based methods, have also been investigated. All these modalities may either overcome some fundamental problems related to mammographic density or provide additional density and/or compositional information. The present review article aimed to summarize the current established and emerging imaging techniques for the measurement of breast density and the evidence of the clinical use of these density methods from the literature.