Back

Fourier Analysis of Bilateral Breast Asymmetry for Short-term Breast Cancer Risk Prediction

Heine, J.; Fowler, E.; Egan, K.; Weinfurtner, R. J.; Balagurunathan, Y.; Schabath, M. B.

2026-03-30 radiology and imaging
10.64898/2026.03.27.26349508 medRxiv
Show abstract

A substantial body of evidence demonstrates that measures from mammograms are predictive of breast cancer risk. In this matched case-control study, mammograms acquired near the time of diagnosis were analyzed to investigate bilateral breast asymmetry as measure of short-term risk prediction. Specifically, contralateral breast images were compared with measures derived in the Fourier domain (FD); this technique summarizes power in concentric radial bands that cover the Fourier plane. Equivalently, this approach can be described as a multiscale characterization of the image. The summarized power difference between respective contralateral bands produces an asymmetry measure. Full field digital mammography (FFDM) and synthetic two-dimensional images from digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) were investigated for women that had both types of mammograms acquired at the same time. Odds ratios (ORs) and the area under the receiver operating curves (Azs) were generated from conditional logistic regression modeling with 95% confidence intervals. Raw unprocessed FFDM images produced significant findings: OR = 1.90 (1.58, 2.29) and Az = 1.72 (0.67, 0.76) per one standard deviation unit. Associations were significant but attenuated for both clinical FFDM and DBT images: OR = 1.31 (1.11, 1.54) and Az = 0.63 (0.58, 0.67); and OR = 1.48 (1.25, 1.76) and Az = 0.65 (0.60, 0.70), respectively. Results suggest that clinical FFDM and DBT images are inferior to raw FFDM images in capturing breast asymmetry with information loss for breast cancer risk prediction. Moreover, these DBT images have lower spatial resolution but produced stronger associations than the clinical FFDM images.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"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.