Proton density water fraction as a reproducible MR-based measurement of breast density

被引:6
作者
Bancroft, Leah C. Henze [1 ]
Strigel, Roberta M. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Macdonald, Erin B. [1 ,4 ]
Longhurst, Colin [5 ]
Johnson, Jacob [1 ,6 ]
Hernando, Diego [1 ,2 ]
Reeder, Scott B. [1 ,2 ,6 ,7 ,8 ]
机构
[1] Univ Wisconsin, Dept Radiol, 3252 Clin Sci Ctr,600 Highland Ave, Madison, WI 53792 USA
[2] Univ Wisconsin, Dept Med Phys, Madison, WI 53792 USA
[3] Univ Wisconsin, Carbone Canc Ctr, Madison, WI 53792 USA
[4] Duke Univ, Med Ctr, Clin Imaging Phys Grp, Durham, NC USA
[5] Univ Wisconsin, Dept Biostat & Med Informat, Madison, WI 53792 USA
[6] Univ Wisconsin, Dept Biomed Engn, Madison, WI 53792 USA
[7] Univ Wisconsin, Dept Med, Madison, WI 53792 USA
[8] Univ Wisconsin, Dept Emergency Med, Madison, WI 53792 USA
关键词
breast density; breast MRI; chemical shift encoded fat-water MRI; proton density water fraction; MAMMOGRAPHIC DENSITY; FAT QUANTIFICATION; QUANTITATIVE MEASUREMENT; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; ADIPOSE-TISSUE; SEPARATION; RISK; CANCER; VOLUME; REPEATABILITY;
D O I
10.1002/mrm.29076
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Purpose To introduce proton density water fraction (PDWF) as a confounder-corrected (CC) MR-based biomarker of mammographic breast density, a known risk factor for breast cancer. Methods Chemical shift encoded (CSE) MR images were acquired using a low flip angle to provide proton density contrast from multiple echo times. Fat and water images, corrected for known biases, were produced by a six-echo CC CSE-MRI algorithm. Fibroglandular tissue (FGT) volume was calculated from whole-breast segmented PDWF maps at 1.5T and 3T. The method was evaluated in (1) a physical fat-water phantom and (2) normal volunteers. Results from two- and three-echo CSE-MRI methods were included for comparison. Results Six-echo CC-CSE-MRI produced unbiased estimates of the total water volume in the phantom (mean bias 3.3%) and was reproducible across protocol changes (repeatability coefficient [RC] = 14.8 cm(3) and 13.97 cm(3) at 1.5T and 3.0T, respectively) and field strengths (RC = 51.7 cm(3)) in volunteers, while the two- and three-echo CSE-MRI approaches produced biased results in phantoms (mean bias 30.7% and 10.4%) that was less reproducible across field strengths in volunteers (RC = 82.3 cm(3) and 126.3 cm(3)). Significant differences in measured FGT volume were found between the six-echo CC-CSE-MRI and the two- and three-echo CSE-MRI approaches (p = 0.002 and p = 0.001, respectively). Conclusion The use of six-echo CC-CSE-MRI to create unbiased PDWF maps that reproducibly quantify FGT in the breast is demonstrated. Further studies are needed to correlate this quantitative MR biomarker for breast density with mammography and overall risk for breast cancer.
引用
收藏
页码:1742 / 1757
页数:16
相关论文
共 63 条
[1]   Reliability of Automated Breast Density Measurements [J].
Alonzo-Proulx, Olivier ;
Mawdsley, Gordon E. ;
Patrie, James T. ;
Yaffe, Martin J. ;
Harvey, Jennifer A. .
RADIOLOGY, 2015, 275 (02) :366-376
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2020, R LANG ENV STAT COMP
[3]   A comparison of five methods of measuring mammographic density: a case-control study [J].
Astley, Susan M. ;
Harkness, Elaine F. ;
Sergeant, Jamie C. ;
Warwick, Jane ;
Stavrinos, Paula ;
Warren, Ruth ;
Wilson, Mary ;
Beetles, Ursula ;
Gadde, Soujanya ;
Lim, Yit ;
Jain, Anil ;
Bundred, Sara ;
Barr, Nicola ;
Reece, Valerie ;
Brentnall, Adam R. ;
Cuzick, Jack ;
Howell, Tony ;
Evans, D. Gareth .
BREAST CANCER RESEARCH, 2018, 20
[4]   Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer [J].
Boyd, Norman F. ;
Guo, Helen ;
Martin, Lisa J. ;
Sun, Limei ;
Stone, Jennifer ;
Fishell, Eve ;
Jong, Roberta A. ;
Hislop, Greg ;
Chiarelli, Anna ;
Minkin, Salomon ;
Yaffe, Martin J. .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2007, 356 (03) :227-236
[5]   Breast Tissue Composition and Susceptibility to Breast Cancer [J].
Boyd, Norman F. ;
Martin, Lisa J. ;
Bronskill, Michael ;
Yaffe, Martin J. ;
Duric, Neb ;
Minkin, Salomon .
JNCI-JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2010, 102 (16) :1224-1237
[6]   Comparison of Clinical and Automated Breast Density Measurements: Implications for Risk Prediction and Supplemental Screening [J].
Brandt, Kathleen R. ;
Scott, Christopher G. ;
Ma, Lin ;
Mahmoudzadeh, Amir P. ;
Jensen, Matthew R. ;
Whaley, Dana H. ;
Wu, Fang Fang ;
Malkov, Serghei ;
Hruska, Carrie B. ;
Norman, Aaron D. ;
Heine, John ;
Shepherd, John ;
Pankratz, V. Shane ;
Kerlikowske, Karla ;
Vachon, Celine M. .
RADIOLOGY, 2016, 279 (03) :710-719
[7]   Factors contributing to mammography failure in women aged 40-49 years [J].
Buist, DSM ;
Porter, PL ;
Lehman, C ;
Taplin, SH ;
White, E .
JNCI-JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2004, 96 (19) :1432-1440
[8]   Quantitative breast density analysis to predict interval and node-positive cancers in pursuit of improved screening protocols: a case-control study [J].
Burnside, Elizabeth S. ;
Warren, Lucy M. ;
Myles, Jonathan ;
Wilkinson, Louise S. ;
Wallis, Matthew G. ;
Patel, Mishal ;
Smith, Robert A. ;
Young, Kenneth C. ;
Massat, Nathalie J. ;
Duffy, Stephen W. .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2021, 125 (06) :884-892
[9]   Mapping the double bonds in triglycerides [J].
Bydder, Mark ;
Girard, Olivier ;
Hamilton, Gavin .
MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 2011, 29 (08) :1041-1046
[10]   Comparison of breast density measured on MR images acquired using fat-suppressed versus nonfat-suppressed sequences [J].
Chang, Daniel H. -E. ;
Chen, Jeon-Hor ;
Lin, Muqing ;
Bahri, Shadfar ;
Yu, Hon J. ;
Mehta, Rita S. ;
Nie, Ke ;
Hsiang, David J. B. ;
Nalcioglu, Orhan ;
Su, Min-Ying .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2011, 38 (11) :5961-5968