Similarity of Fibroglandular Breast Tissue Content Measured from Magnetic Resonance and Mammographic Images and by a Mathematical Algorithm
Table 2
Mean differences and 95% confidence interval in percent glandular tissue (%-G), gland volume (GV), fat volume (FV), and total breast volume (TV) by Tukey’s test.
Methods compared
%-G
GV (mL)
FV (mL)
TV (mL)
MATH versus HSMa
1.1 (−2.85, 4.94)b
11.4 (−32.52, 55.26)
10.7 (−55.57, 77.06)
0 (−75.98, 75.98)
STIR versus 3DGRE
2.9 (−1.00, 6.81)
22.3 (−21.65, 66.29)
24.3 (−42.17, 90.71)
1.9 (−74.32, 78.21)
3DGRE versus HSM
4.5 (0.56, 8.37)*
94.1 (50.09, 138.04)*
51.9 (−14.54, 118.34)
146.0 (69.7, 222.23)*
3DGRE versus MATH
5.5 (1.60, 9.42)*
105.4 (61.38, 149.49)*
41.2 (−25.40, 107.71)
146.0 (69.7, 222.23)*
3DGRE versus FFDM
11.5 (7.57, 15.38)*
138.0 (94.05, 181.99)*
7.9 (−58.49, 74.38)
146.0 (69.7, 222.23)*
STIR versus HSM
1.6 (−2.22, 5.34)
71.8 (27.94, 115.56)*
76.2 (9.97, 142.36)*
147.9 (71.93, 223.90)*
STIR versus MATH
2.6 (−1.29, 6.50)
83.1 (39.23, 127.01)*
65.4 (−0.89, 131.74)*
147.9 (71.93, 223.90)*
STIR versus FFDM
8.6 (4.68, 12.46)*
115.7 (71.89, 159.51)*
33.2 (−98.40, 33.98)
147.9 (71.93, 223.90)*
FFDM versus HSM
7.0 (3.12, 10.90)*
44.0 (0.14, 87.76)*
44 (−22.24, 110.15)
0 (−75.98, 75.98)
FFDM versus MATH
6.0 (2.07, 9.86)*
32.6 (−11.31, 76.47)
33.2 (−33.20, 99.53)
0 (−75.98, 75.98)
HSM, histogram segmentation method; FFDM, full field digital mammography unit; MATH, mathematical algorithm; 3DGRE, 3D gradient echo; STIR, short tau inversion recovery.
bMean (95% confidence interval).
*Difference between means, significance at with false discovery rate.
