Accurate Quantification of Glandularity and Its Applications with Regard to Breast Radiation Doses and Missed Lesion Rates During Individualized Screening Mammography

  • Mika Yamamuro
  • Kanako Yamada
  • Yoshiyuki Asai
  • Koji Yamada
  • Yoshiaki Ozaki
  • Masao Matsumoto
  • Takamichi Murakami
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9699)

Abstract

Mammography, the most effective early breast cancer detection technique, is associated with the risk of missed lesions in dense breasts, and excessive X-ray exposure. Accurate estimations of glandularity and radiation dose are important during screening. We propose a novel, inexpensive method for accurate glandularity quantification using pixel values in clinical digital mammograms and X-ray exposure spectra. Glandularities were calculated for 314 mammograms in Japanese women, and the Dance formula c-factor was applied to estimate breast doses. To investigate the relationship between breast thickness and missed lesions, images were classified into four categories based on the rate of missed lesions, and correlated with breast thickness. Glandularity decreased with increasing compressed breast thickness, indicating that commonly used breast doses (assumed 50% glandularity) significantly overestimate thin breasts and underestimate thick breasts. The missed lesion rate was higher for thinner compressed breast thicknesses. Accurate glandularity estimation could thus promote individualized screening mammography.

Keywords

Individualized screening mammography Glandularity Breast dose X-ray spectrum Missed lesion rate 

References

  1. 1.
    Paul, S., Solanki, P.P., Shahi, U.P., Srikrishna, S.: Epidemiological study on breast cancer associated risk factors and screening: practices among women in the holy city of Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 16, 8163–8171 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Braithwaite, D., Demb, J., Henderson, L.M.: Optimal breast cancer screening strategies for older women: current perspectives. Clin. Interv. Aging. 11, 111–125 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Haddad, F.G., Kourie, H.R., Adib, S.M.: Trends in mammography utilization for breast cancer screening in a Middle-Eastern country: Lebanon 2005–2013. Cancer Epidemiol. 39, 819–824 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jayadevan, R., Armada, M.J., Shaheen, R., Mulcahy, C., Slanetz, P.J.: Optimizing digital mammographic image quality for full-field digital detectors: artifacts encountered during the QC process. Radiographics 35, 2080–2089 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Maeda, K., Matsumoto, M., Taniguchi, A.: Compton-scattering measurement of diagnostic X-ray spectrum using high-resolution Schottky CdTe detector. Med. Phys. 32, 1542–1547 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tomal, A., Cunha, D.M., Antoniassi, M., Poletti, M.E.: Response functions of Si(Li), SDD and CdTe detectors for mammographic X-ray spectroscopy. Appl. Radiat. Isot. 70, 1355–1359 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dance, D.R., Skinner, C.L., Young, K.C., Beckett, J.R., Kotre, J.C.: Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose using the UK mammography dosimetry protocol. Phys. Med. Biol. 45, 3225–3240 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hubbell, J.H., Seltzer, S.M.: Tables of X-ray mass attenuation coefficients and mass energy-absorption coefficients 1 keV to 20 MeV for elements Z1 to 92 and 48 additional substances of dosimetric interest. Technology Administration. USGPO Washington, D.C. (1995)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Peters, G., Jones, C.M., Daniels, K.: Why is microcalcification missed on mammography? J. Med. Imaging Radiat. Oncol. 57, 32–37 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Suzuki, A., Kuriyama, S., Kawai, M., Amari, M., Takeda, M., et al.: Age-specific interval breast cancers in Japan: estimation of the proper sensitivity of screening using a population-based cancer registry. Cancer Sci. 99, 2264–2267 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dance, D.R., Hunt, R.A., Bakic, P.R., Maidment, A.D.A., Sandborg, M., Ullman, G., Carlsson, G.A.: Breast dosimetry using high-resolution voxel phantoms. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 114, 359–363 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dance, D.R., Skinner, C.L., Carlsson, G.A.: Breast dosimetry. Appl. Radiat. Isot. 50, 185–203 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mika Yamamuro
    • 1
  • Kanako Yamada
    • 1
  • Yoshiyuki Asai
    • 1
  • Koji Yamada
    • 1
  • Yoshiaki Ozaki
    • 2
  • Masao Matsumoto
    • 3
  • Takamichi Murakami
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Central RadiologyKindai University HospitalOsaka-sayamaJapan
  2. 2.Research Institute of Scientific InvestigationKyoto Prefectural Police HeadquartersOsaka-sayamaJapan
  3. 3.Division of Health Sciences, Graduate School of MedicineOsaka UniversityOsaka-sayamaJapan
  4. 4.Department of RadiologyKindai University Faculty of MedicineOsaka-sayamaJapan

Personalised recommendations