Cross-Field Strength and Multi-Vendor Validation of MagDensity for MRI-based Quantitative Breast Density Analysis
Ying, J.; Cattell, R.; Huang, C.
Show abstract
PurposeBreast density (BD) is a significant risk factor for breast cancer, yet current assessment methods lack automation, quantification, and cross-platform consistency. This study aims to evaluate MagDensity, a novel magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based quantitative BD measure, for its validity and reliability across different imaging platforms. MethodsTen healthy volunteers participated in this prospective study, undergoing fat-water MRI scans on three scanners: 3T Siemens Prisma, 3T Siemens Biograph mMR, and 1.5T GE Signa. Great effort was made to schedule all scans within a narrow three-hour window on the same day to minimize any potential intraday variations, highlighting the logistical challenges involved. BD was assessed using the MagDensity technique, which included combining magnitude and phase images, applying a fat-water separation technique, employing an automated whole-breast segmentation algorithm, and quantifying the volumetric water fraction. The agreement between measures was analyzed using mean differences, two-tailed t-tests, Pearsons correlation coefficients, and Bland-Altman plots. ResultsNo statistically significant differences in BD measurements by MagDensity within the same field strength and vendor (3T Siemens), with high correlation (Pearsons r > 0.99) and negligible mean differences (< 0.2%). Cross-platform comparison between the 3T Siemens and the 1.5T GE scanners showed mean differences of < 5%. After linear calibration, these variations were reduced to insignificant levels, yielding a strong correlation (Pearsons r > 0.97) and mean differences within {+/-}0.2%. ConclusionMagDensity, an MRI-based BD measure, exhibits robustness and reliability across diverse scanner models, vendors, and field strengths, marking a promising advancement towards standardizing BD measurements across multiple MRI platforms. It provides a valuable tool for monitoring subtle longitudinal changes in BD, which is vital for breast cancer prevention and personalized treatment strategies.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Correction of Artifacts Induced by B0 Inhomogeneities in Breast MRI using Reduced Field-of-View Echo-Planar Imaging and Enhanced Reverse Polarity Gradient Method 95%
- Pancreas MRI segmentation into head, body, and tail enables regional quantitative analysis of heterogeneous disease 93%
- Short-term variability of proton density fat fraction in pancreas and liver assessed by multi-echo chemical-shift encoding-based MRI at 3 T 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Increased Brain Volumetric Measurement Precision from Multi-Site 3D T1-weighted 3T Magnetic Resonance Imaging by Correcting Geometric Distortions 93%
- Noise decorrelation optimizes SNR of GABA-edited MRS data: A comparison of RF coil combination methods 92%
- Empirical field mapping for gradient nonlinearity correction of multi-site diffusion weighted MRI 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Automated cervix biometry, volumetry and normative models for 3D motion-corrected T2-weighted 0.55-3T fetal MRI during 2nd and 3rd trimesters 92%
- Radius-Optimized Efficient Template Matching for Lesion Detection from Brain Images 91%
- Indexing Cerebrovascular Health Using Near-infrared Spectroscopy 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Model uncertainty estimates for deep learning mammographic density prediction using ordinal and classification approaches 91%
- Mammographic density assessed using deep learning in women at high risk of developing breast cancer: the effect of weight change on density 91%
- Breast density prediction from low and standard dose mammograms using deep learning: effect of image resolution and model training approach on prediction quality 89%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.