Mammographic density and breast cancer risk in breast screening assessment cases and women with a family history of breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Mammographic density has been shown to be a strong independent predictor of breast cancer and a causative factor in reducing the sensitivity of mammography. There remain questions as to the use of mammographic density information in the context of screening and risk management, and of the association with cancer in populations known to be at increased risk of breast cancer. AIM: To assess the association of breast density with presence of cancer by measuring mammographic density visually as a percentage, and with two automated volumetric methods, Quantra™ and VolparaDensity™. METHODS: The TOMosynthesis with digital MammographY (TOMMY) study of digital breast tomosynthesis in the Breast Screening Programme of the National Health Service (NHS) of the United Kingdom (UK) included 6020 breast screening assessment cases (of whom 1158 had breast cancer) and 1040 screened women with a family history of breast cancer (of whom two had breast cancer). We assessed the association of each measure with breast cancer risk in these populations at enhanced risk, using logistic regression adjusted for age and total breast volume as a surrogate for body mass index (BMI). RESULTS: All density measures showed a positive association with presence of cancer and all declined with age. The strongest effect was seen with Volpara absolute density, with a significant 3% (95% CI 1-5%) increase in risk per 10 cm3 of dense tissue. The effect of Volpara volumetric density on risk was stronger for large and grade 3 tumours. CONCLUSIONS: Automated absolute breast density is a predictor of breast cancer risk in populations at enhanced risk due to either positive mammographic findings or family history. In the screening context, density could be a trigger for more intensive imaging.

Mammographic breast density: comparison of methods for quantitative evaluation.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the results from two software tools for measurement of mammographic breast density and compare them with observer-based scores in a large cohort of women. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Following written informed consent, a data set of 36 281 mammograms from 8867 women were collected from six United Kingdom centers in an ethically approved trial. Breast density was assessed by one of 26 readers on a visual analog scale and with two automated density tools. Mean differences were calculated as the mean of all the individual percentage differences between each measurement for each case (woman). Agreement in total breast volume, fibroglandular volume, and percentage density was assessed with the Bland-Altman method. Association with observer's scores was calculated by using the Pearson correlation coefficient (r). RESULTS: Correlation between the Quantra and Volpara outputs for total breast volume was r = 0.97 (P < .001), with a mean difference of 43.5 cm(3) for all cases representing 5.0% of the mean total breast volume. Correlation of the two measures was lower for fibroglandular volume (r = 0.86, P < .001). The mean difference was 30.3 cm(3) for all cases representing 21.2% of the mean fibroglandular tissue volume result. Quantra gave the larger value and the difference tended to increase with volume. For the two measures of percentage volume density, the mean difference was 1.61 percentage points (r = 0.78, P < .001). Comparison of observer's scores with the area-based density given by Quantra yielded a low correlation (r = 0.55, P < .001). Correlations of observer's scores with the volumetric density results gave r values of 0.60 (P < .001) and 0.63 (P < .001) for Quantra and Volpara, respectively. CONCLUSION: Automated techniques for measuring breast density show good correlation, but these are poorly correlated with observer's scores. However automated techniques do give different results that should be considered when informing patient personalized imaging. (©) RSNA, 2015 Clinical trial registration no. ISRCTN 73467396.