Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Jun;98(25):e16123.
doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000016123.

Breast Density Assessment in Young Women with Ultrasound based on Speed of Sound: Influence of the Menstrual Cycle

Affiliations

Breast Density Assessment in Young Women with Ultrasound based on Speed of Sound: Influence of the Menstrual Cycle

Lisa Ruby et al. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019 Jun.

Abstract

To investigate changes in breast density (BD) during the menstrual cycle in young women in comparison to inter-breast and -segment changes as well as reproducibility of a novel Speed-of-Sound (SoS) Ultrasound (US) method.SoS-US uses a conventional US system with a reflector and a software add-on to quantify SoS in the retro-mammillary, inner and outer segments of both breasts. Twenty healthy women (18-40 years) with regular menstrual cycles were scanned twice with two weeks in-between. Three of these were additionally measured twice per week for 25 days. Average SoS (m/s) and ΔSoS (segment-variation SoS; m/s) were measured. Variations between follicular and luteal phases and changes over the four-week period were assessed. Inter-examiner and inter-reader agreements were also evaluated. Variances between cycle phases, examiners and readers were compared.No significant SoS difference was observed between follicular and luteal phases for the twenty women (P = .126), and between all different days for the three more frequently measured women (P = .892). Inter-reader (ICC = 0.999) and inter-examiner (ICC = 0.990) agreements were high. The SoS variance due to menstrual variations was not significantly larger than the inter-examiner uncertainty (P = .461). Inter-reader variations were significantly smaller than menstrual and examiner variations (P < .001).SoS-US showed high inter-examiner and inter-reader reproducibility. The alterations during the menstrual cycles were not significantly larger than the confidence interval of measurements.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Speed-of-Sound (SoS) ultrasound (US) examination setting. (A) View from ventral: breast with positioning frame, reflector, US probe and distance adjustment unit; (B) right breast viewed from above showing the three measured breast segments; (C) Annotation of average SoS value (1562 m/s) and SoS variation range (‘breast heterogeneity’) ΔSoS = 12 m/s in a dense breast segment. The back wall echo of the reflector is used as a timing reference. The automatic reading is displayed as an overlaid red line.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Boxplots of SoS (A) and ΔSoS (B) values of the follicular (n = 20) and luteal phases (n = 20). Average measurements of both breasts are plotted. The P values represent a comparison using paired t test.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Correlation of SoS (A) and ΔSoS (B) measurements of the follicular (n = 20) and luteal phases (n = 20) (average measurements of both breasts).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Frequently measured women. Average values of six segments (three per breast) over a 25-day period.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Correlation of SoS (A) and ΔSoS (B) measurements between examiner 1 and examiner 2 (average measurements of both breasts).
Figure 6
Figure 6
Bland-Altman plot. Automatic annotation – manual annotation (mean of reader 1 and reader 2).
Figure 7
Figure 7
Boxplots of uncertainties between SoS (A) and ΔSoS (B) measurements performed at left: different menstruation phases (luteal/follicular), center: by different examiners, and right: annotated by different readers. Average measurements of both breasts are plotted.

References

    1. Brentnall AR, Harkness EF, Astley SM, et al. Mammographic density adds accuracy to both the Tyrer-Cuzick and Gail breast cancer risk models in a prospective UK screening cohort. Breast Cancer Res 2015;17:147. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bae MS, Moon WK, Chang JM, et al. Breast cancer detected with screening US: reasons for nondetection at mammography. Radiology 2014;270:369–77. - PubMed
    1. Hooley RJ. Breast density legislation and clinical evidence. Radiol Clin North Am 2017;55:513–26. - PubMed
    1. Cuzick J, Warwick J, Pinney E, et al. Tamoxifen-induced reduction in mammographic density and breast cancer risk reduction: a nested case-control study. J Natl Cancer I 2011;103:744–52. - PubMed
    1. Lundberg FE, Johansson AL, Rodriguez-Wallberg K, et al. Association of infertility and fertility treatment with mammographic density in a large screening-based cohort of women: a cross-sectional study. Breast Cancer Res 2016;18:36. - PMC - PubMed