Breast volume assessment with a smart phone device compared to MRI

Background Assessment of breast volume is relevant for aesthetic surgery, prevention and prediction of breast diseases. We investigated breast volume determination using a three-dimensional (3D) body surface scanner of a smart phone device compared to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans.

Methods 22 women who underwent routine MRI imaging were eligible for 3D body surface assessment. 3D surface images were acquired via a digital texture camera of a smartphone (iPhone 11 Pro Max, Apple, California, USA, 2019).

Breast volumes were calculated by two independent investigators using a 3D software tool. MRI imaging volume assessments were performed by a specially trained radiologist. Both techniques included manual outlining of the breast and thoracic wall after image acquisition. Agreement between both methods and the interobserver agreement was assessed with linear regression models.

Results The mean breast volume using MRI volumetry was 771.00 ml on the left side and 763.91 ml on the right side. The mean breast volume using the 3D body surface volume assessment method was 660.32 ml (observer A) and 616.82 ml (observer B) on the left side and 701.86 ml (observer A) and 638.64 ml (observer B) on the right side. The use of linear regression models showed high correlation, while differences in volume measurements seemed larger for larger volume breasts.

Conclusions Smart phone-based 3D assessment of breast volume sufficiently correlates with MRI-based breast volume. This new technique could be used in large-scale epidemiologic studies assessing breast volume as outcome parameter. Another potential application field could lie in breast surgery planning.

Interessenkonflikt

Ich erkläre als korrespondierender Autor, dass ich oder einer bzw. mehrere meiner Ko-Autoren während der letzten 3 Jahre wirtschaftliche oder persönliche Verbindungen im oben genannten Sinne hatten:

Interessenkonflikt Details P.A.F. received honoraria from Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Amgen, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Merck-Sharp & Dohme, Eisai, Puma and Teva, his institution conducts research with funding from Novartis and Biontech.

C.C.H. has received honoraria from Roche, Pfizer, and Novartis.

J.E. reports personal fees from Novartis, Pfizer and Eisai.

All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Publication History

Article published online:
11 October 2022