Abstract
Purpose
To investigate the usefulness of density gradient of mammographic masses for differentiating benign from malignant lesions, particularly circumscribed masses, which are difficult to diagnose by shape.
Materials and methods
Phantom experiments were performed and diagnostic mammography examinations were reviewed. Mammograms of three acrylic resin globes differing in hardness were acquired with/without applied pressure, and density gradients were examined on intensity histograms with standard deviation (SD) as a hardness index. Similar analyses were performed using clinical mammographic examinations of circumscribed mass lesions. The usefulness of SD for differentiating between benign and malignant lesions was investigated by ROC curve analysis and minimum/maximum values of malignant and benign lesions, respectively.
Results
For circumscribed masses (n = 196, benign, n = 176; malignant, n = 20), ROC analysis showed AUC = 0.786, with sensitivity = 70.0 %, specificity = 70.5 %, accuracy = 70.4 %, positive predictive value = 21.1 %, and negative predictive value = 95.4 % at SD = 64.46. Minimum and maximum SD of malignant and benign masses were 39.1 and 241.7, respectively.
Conclusion
On mammography, circumscribed masses can be diagnosed with moderate accuracy using the intensity histogram SD. Masses with SD below the minimum of breast cancer can be roughly diagnosed as clinically benign.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Marsteller LP. Shaw de Paredes E. Well defined masses in the breast. Radiographics. 1989;9:13–37.
American College of Radiology (ACR). Breast imaging reporting and data system atlas (BI-RADS® Atlas), 5th ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2013. p. 136.
Okafuji T, Yabuuchi H, Soeda H, Matsuo Y, Kamitani T, Sakai S, et al. Circumscribed mass lesions on mammography: dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging to differentiate malignancy and benignancy. Magn Reson Med Sci. 2008;7:195–204.
Sickles EA. Breast masses, mammographic evaluation. Radiology. 1989;173:297–303.
Baker JA, Kornguth PJ, Floyd CE Jr. Breast imaging reporting and data system standardized mammography lexicon: observer variability in lesion description. AJR. 1996;166:773–8.
Brant WE, Helms C. Fundamentals of diagnostic radiology. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2012. p. 546–7.
Joe BN, Sickles EA. The evolution of breast imaging: past to present. Radiology. 2014;273:S23–44.
Ostrum BJ, Becker W, Isard HJ. Low-dose mammography. Radiology. 1973;109:323–6.
Krouskop TA, Wheeler TM, Kallel F, Garra BS, Hall T. Elastic moduli of breast and prostate tissues under compression. Ultrason Imaging. 1998;20:260–74.
Acknowledgments
All authors have no relevant financial or nonfinancial relationships to disclose. And Institutional Review Board admitted this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
About this article
Cite this article
Ohta, T., Nakata, N., Nishioka, M. et al. Quantitative differentiation of benign and malignant mammographic circumscribed masses using intensity histograms. Jpn J Radiol 33, 559–565 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-015-0456-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-015-0456-8