Abstract
Purpose Breast 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.
Methods Ten 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, Pearson’s correlation coefficients, and Bland-Altman plots.
Results No statistically significant differences in BD measurements by MagDensity within the same field strength and vendor (3T Siemens), with high correlation (Pearson’s 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 (Pearson’s r > 0.97) and mean differences within ±0.2%.
Conclusion MagDensity, 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.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Yes
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Stony Brook University, and written informed consent was obtained from all participants.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The data presented in this study will be publicly available on our lab’s website under the "Research/Available Data" section: https://sites.google.com/stonybrook.edu/miralab/research/available-data
