4.6 Article

Quantitative Volumetric K-Means Cluster Segmentation of Fibroglandular Tissue and Skin in Breast Mill

期刊

JOURNAL OF DIGITAL IMAGING
卷 31, 期 4, 页码 425-434

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10278-017-0031-1

关键词

Magnetic resonance imaging; Mammography; Breast density; Tomosynthesis; Segmentation; FGT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mammographic breast density (MBD) is the most commonly used method to assess the volume of fibroglandular tissue (FGT). However, MRI could provide a clinically feasible and more accurate alternative. There were three aims in this study: (1) to evaluate a clinically feasible method to quantify FGT with MRI, (2) to assess the inter-rater agreement of MRI-based volumetric measurements and (3) to compare them to measurements acquired using digital mammography and 3D tomosynthesis. This retrospective study examined 72 women (mean age 52.4 +/- 12.3 years) with 105 disease-free breasts undergoing diagnostic 3.0-T breast MRI and either digital mammography or tomosynthesis. Two observers analyzed MRI images for breast and FGT volumes and FGT-% from T1-weighted images (0.7-, 2.0-, and 4.0-mmthick slices) using K-means clustering, data from histogram, and active contour algorithms. Reference values were obtained with Quantra software. Inter-rater agreement for MRI measurements made with 2-mm-thick slices was excellent: for FGT-%, r = 0.994 (95% CI 0.990-0.997); for breast volume, r = 0.985 (95% CI 0.934-0.994); and for FGT volume, r = 0.979 (95% CI 0.958-0.989). MRI-based FGT-% correlated strongly with MBD in mammography (r = 0.819-0.904, P < 0.001) and moderately to high with MBD in tomosynthesis (r = 0.630-0.738, P < 0.001). K-means clustering-based assessments of the proportion of the fibroglandular tissue in the breast at MRI are highly reproducible. In the future, quantitative assessment of FGT-% to complement visual estimation of FGT should be performed on a more regular basis as it provides a component which can be incorporated into the individual's breast cancer risk stratification.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据