Advertisement

A New Step-Wedge for the Volumetric Measurement of Mammographic Density

  • Jennifer Diffey
  • Alan Hufton
  • Susan Astley
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4046)

Abstract

The volume of dense breast tissue can be calculated from an x-ray mammogram by imaging a calibrated step-wedge alongside the breast and determining the compressed breast thickness. Previously published work used a step-wedge made of PTFE with a maximum height of 35mm, length 175mm and width 15mm. Although fulfilling all theoretical requirements, it can be difficult to find space on the film for a large step-wedge when examining bigger breasts. Furthermore, the step-wedge is lead-lined, making it heavy and difficult to attach to the bucky. A more compact aluminium step-wedge has been designed to overcome these limitations, and experiments have been carried out on a prototype to evaluate its performance. Initial results show that the maximum and minimum heights of the prototype step-wedge are inadequate to sufficiently cover the range of optical densities within a breast image at the higher and lower exposures required for 6cm and 2cm Perspex (>200mAs and <40mAs respectively). However, the step increment appears to be satisfactory. Analysis of the mean pixel value and standard deviation within Regions of Interest of varying size and position indicates an optimum step length of 3mm. A new step-wedge has been constructed with an improved specification informed by the evaluation of the prototype.

Keywords

Step Length Mammographic Density Digital Mammography Step Height Volumetric Measurement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Wolfe, J.N.: Breast patterns as an index of risk for developing breast cancer. Am. J. Roentgenol. 126(6), 1130–1137 (1976)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boyd, N.F., O’Sullivan, B., Campbell, J.E., Fishell, E., Simor, I., Cooke, G., Germanson, T.: Mammographic signs as risk factors for breast cancer. Br. J. Cancer 45(2), 185–193 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boyd, N.F., Byng, J.W., Jong, R.A., Fishell, E.K., Little, L.E., Miller, A.B., Lockwood, G.A., Tritchler, D.L., Yaffe, M.J.: Quantitative classification of mammographic densities and breast cancer risk: results from the Canadian National Breast Screening Study. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 87(9), 670–675 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Byng, J.W., Yaffe, M.J., Lockwood, G.A., Little, L.E., Tritchler, D.L., Boyd, N.F.: Automated analysis of mammographic densities and breast carcinoma risk. Cancer 80(1), 66–74 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Byng, J.W., Boyd, N.F., Fishell, E., Jong, R.A., Yaffe, M.J.: Automated analysis of mammographic densities. Phys. Med. Biol. 41(5), 909–923 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Byng, J.W., Boyd, N.F., Fishell, E., Jong, R.A., Yaffe, M.J.: The quantitative analysis of mammographic densities. Phys. Med. Biol. 39(10), 1629–1638 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhou, C., Chan, H.P., Petrick, N., Helvie, M.A., Goodsitt, M.M., Sahiner, B., Hadjiiski, L.M.: Computerized image analysis: estimation of breast density on mammograms. Med. Phys. 28(6), 1056–1069 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pawluczyk, O., Augustine, B.J., Yaffe, M.J., Rico, D., Yang, J., Mawdsley, G.E., Boyd, N.F.: A volumetric method for estimation of breast density on digitized screen-film mammograms. Med. Phys. 30(3), 352–364 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Highnam, R.P., Brady, M., Shepstone, B.J.: A representation for mammographic image processing. Med. Image. Anal. 1(1), 1–18 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Highnam, R.P., Brady, M., Shepstone, B.J.: Mammographic image analysis. Eur. J. Radiol. 24(1), 20–32 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Patel, H.G., Astley, S.M., Hufton, A.P., Harvie, M., Hagan, K., Marchant, T.E., Hillier, V., Howell, A.: Automated breast tissue measurement of women at increased risk of breast cancer. In: Pisano, E. (ed.) Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Digital Mammography, Durham, North Carolina, June 18-21, 2004 (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hufton, A.P., Astley, S.M., Marchant, T.E., Patel, H.G.: A method for the quantification of dense breast tissue from digitised mammograms. In: Pisano, E. (ed.) Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Digital Mammography, Manchester, England, June 18-21 (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Smith, J.H., Astley, S.M., Graham, J., Hufton, A.P.: The calibration of grey levels in mammograms. In: Doi, K., Giger, M.L., Nishikawa, R.M., Schmidt, R.A. (eds.) 3rd International Workshop on Digital Mammography, Chicago, published in, Digital Mammography 1996, pp. 195–200. Elsevier, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Berks, M., Diffey, J., Hufton, A., Astley, S.: Feasibility and acceptability of stepwedge-based density measurement. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Digital Mammography, Manchester, England, June 18-21 (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Reilly, A.J., Sutton, D.: Report 78 Spectrum Processor. Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine (1997)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
  17. 17.
    Kodak.: Kodak LS85 film digitizer product specifications. Eastman Kodak Company, Rochester, NY. Cat. No. 165 2908 (2001)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
  19. 19.
    Marchant, T.E.: Calibrating densities in mammography. MSc thesis, Department of Imaging Science and Biomedical Engineering, University of Manchester, UK (2002)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    ICRU Report 44.: Tissue Substitutes in Radiation Dosimetry and Measurement. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (1989)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kaufhold, J., Thomas, J.A., Eberhard, J.W., Galbo, C.E., Gonzalez Trotter, D.E.: A calibration approach to glandular tissue composition estimation in digital mammography. Med. Phys. 29(8), 1867–1880 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jennifer Diffey
    • 1
  • Alan Hufton
    • 1
  • Susan Astley
    • 2
  1. 1.North Western Medical PhysicsChristie HospitalWithington, Manchester
  2. 2.Division of Imaging Science and Biomedical Engineering, Stopford BuildingUniversity of ManchesterManchester

Personalised recommendations