Determination of Normal Breast and Areolar Skin Elasticity Using Shear Wave Elastography

Development of 3D MRI-Based Anatomically Realistic Models of Breast Tissues and Tumours for Microwave Imaging Diagnosis

Breast cancer diagnosis using radar-based medical MicroWave Imaging (MWI) has been studied in recent years. Realistic numerical and physical models of the breast are needed for simulation and experimental testing of MWI prototypes. We aim to provide the scientific community with an online repository of multiple accurate realistic breast tissue models derived from Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), including benign and malignant tumours. Such models are suitable for 3D printing, leveraging experimental MWI testing. We propose a pre-processing pipeline, which includes image registration, bias field correction, data normalisation, background subtraction, and median filtering. We segmented the fat tissue with the region growing algorithm in fat-weighted Dixon images. Skin, fibroglandular tissue, and the chest wall boundary were segmented from water-weighted Dixon images. Then, we applied a 3D region growing and Hoshen-Kopelman algorithms for tumour segmentation. The developed semi-automatic segmentation procedure is suitable to segment tissues with a varying level of heterogeneity regarding voxel intensity. Two accurate breast models with benign and malignant tumours, with dielectric properties at 3, 6, and 9 GHz frequencies have been made available to the research community. These are suitable for microwave diagnosis, i.e., imaging and classification, and can be easily adapted to other imaging modalities.

Comparison of Mass Size Measurements: Synthesized Mammography Versus Full-Field Digital Mammography

OBJECTIVES

To compare mass size measurements between synthesized mammography (SM) and full-field digital mammography (FFDM), and to assess interobserver agreement for those measurements.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred and forty-three patients who underwent FFDM and digital breast tomosynthesis acquisitions during the same compression session were included in the study. Two observers with four-and 1-year experience with digital breast tomosynthesis and SM images, respectively, measured mass sizes independently in two different sessions that were 2 weeks apart, and were blinded to each other. The first session included only FFDM images, and the second session included only SM images. Largest dimension of masses was measured in millimeters. Paired t test was used to compare differences in size measurements between FFDM and SM images. Intraclass correlation coefficient test was used to analyze interobserver agreement. Bland-Altman analyses were performed to evaluate agreements between the imaging techniques and between the observers.

RESULTS

The mean mass sizes on FFDM and SM images were 20.27 ± 14.10 and 18.50 ± 13.05 mm, respectively, for the first observer and 21.56 ± 14.84 and 19.89 ± 13.68 mm, respectively, for the second observer. The mass size measurements were significantly different between FFDM and SM for both observers (p < 0.001). Range of measurement errors, defined as 95% limits of agreements between two imaging techniques for observers 1 and 2 were ±1.96*1.36 mm, and ±1.96*1.53 mm, respectively. Range of measurement errors, defined as 95% limits of agreements between two observers for SM and FFDM were ±1.96*3.68 mm, and ±1.96*3.35 mm, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The measured mass sizes were significantly smaller on SM than FFDM images, and the interobserver differences for both of the imaging techniques were greater than the differences measured between FFDM and SM images.