A comparison of five methods of measuring mammographic density: a case-control study.

BACKGROUND: High mammographic density is associated with both risk of cancers being missed at mammography, and increased risk of developing breast cancer. Stratification of breast cancer prevention and screening requires mammographic density measures predictive of cancer. This study compares five mammographic density measures to determine the association with subsequent diagnosis of breast cancer and the presence of breast cancer at screening. METHODS: Women participating in the "Predicting Risk Of Cancer At Screening" (PROCAS) study, a study of cancer risk, completed questionnaires to provide personal information to enable computation of the Tyrer-Cuzick risk score. Mammographic density was assessed by visual analogue scale (VAS), thresholding (Cumulus) and fully-automated methods (Densitas, Quantra, Volpara) in contralateral breasts of 366 women with unilateral breast cancer (cases) detected at screening on entry to the study (Cumulus 311/366) and in 338 women with cancer detected subsequently. Three controls per case were matched using age, body mass index category, hormone replacement therapy use and menopausal status. Odds ratios (OR) between the highest and lowest quintile, based on the density distribution in controls, for each density measure were estimated by conditional logistic regression, adjusting for classic risk factors. RESULTS: The strongest predictor of screen-detected cancer at study entry was VAS, OR 4.37 (95% CI 2.72-7.03) in the highest vs lowest quintile of percent density after adjustment for classical risk factors. Volpara, Densitas and Cumulus gave ORs for the highest vs lowest quintile of 2.42 (95% CI 1.56-3.78), 2.17 (95% CI 1.41-3.33) and 2.12 (95% CI 1.30-3.45), respectively. Quantra was not significantly associated with breast cancer (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.67-1.54). Similar results were found for subsequent cancers, with ORs of 4.48 (95% CI 2.79-7.18), 2.87 (95% CI 1.77-4.64) and 2.34 (95% CI 1.50-3.68) in highest vs lowest quintiles of VAS, Volpara and Densitas, respectively. Quantra gave an OR in the highest vs lowest quintile of 1.32 (95% CI 0.85-2.05). CONCLUSIONS: Visual density assessment demonstrated a strong relationship with cancer, despite known inter-observer variability; however, it is impractical for population-based screening. Percentage density measured by Volpara and Densitas also had a strong association with breast cancer risk, amongst the automated measures evaluated, providing practical automated methods for risk stratification.

Does Reader Performance with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Vary according to Experience with Two-dimensional Mammography?

Purpose To assess whether individual reader performance with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and two-dimensional (2D) mammography varies with number of years of experience or volume of 2D mammograms read. Materials and Methods After written informed consent was obtained, 8869 women (age range, 29-85 years; mean age, 56 years) were recruited into the TOMMY trial (A Comparison of Tomosynthesis with Digital Mammography in the UK National Health Service Breast Screening Program), an ethically approved, multicenter, multireader, retrospective reading study, between July 2011 and March 2013. Each case was read prospectively for clinical assessment and to establish ground truth. A retrospective reading data set of 7060 cases was created and randomly allocated for independent blinded review of (a) 2D mammograms, (b) DBT images and 2D mammograms, and (c) synthetic 2D mammograms and DBT images, without access to previous examinations. Readers (19 radiologists, three advanced practitioner radiographers, and two breast clinicians) who had 3-25 (median, 10) years of experience in the U.K. National Health Service Breast Screening Program and read 5000-13 000 (median, 8000) cases per annum were included in this study. Specificity was analyzed according to reader type and years and volume of experience, and then both specificity and sensitivity were analyzed by matched inference. The median duration of experience (10 years) was used as the cutoff point for comparison of reader performance. Results Specificity improved with the addition of DBT for all readers. This was significant for all staff groups (56% vs 68% and 49% vs 67% [P < .0001] for radiologists and advanced practitioner radiographers, respectively; 46% vs 55% [P = .02] for breast clinicians). Sensitivity was improved for 19 of 24 (79%) readers and was significantly higher for those with less than 10 years of experience (91% vs 86%; P = .03) and those with total mammographic experience of fewer than 80 000 cases (88% vs 86%; P = .03). Conclusion The addition of DBT to conventional 2D screening mammography improved specificity for all readers, but the gain in sensitivity was greater for readers with less than 10 years of experience.

Randomized controlled trial of stereotactic 11-G vacuum-assisted core biopsy for the diagnosis and management of mammographic microcalcification.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of 11-G vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB) with 14-G core needle biopsy (CNB) to diagnose mammographic microcalcification (MM) and effect on surgical outcomes. METHODS: Following ethical approval, VAB and CNB (control) were compared in a randomized prospective study for first-line diagnosis of MM and subsequent surgical outcomes in two breast-screening units. Participants gave written informed consent. Exclusions included comorbidity precluding surgery, prior ipsilateral breast cancer and lesions >40 mm requiring mastectomy as first surgical procedure. The final pathological diagnosis was compared with the initial biopsy result. Quality-of-life (QOL) questionnaires were administered at baseline, 2, 6 and 12 months. 110 participants were required to show a 25% improvement in diagnosis with VAB compared with CNB (90% power). RESULTS: Eligibility was assessed for 787 cases; 129 females recalled from the National Health Service breast screening programme were randomized. Diagnostic accuracy of VAB was 86% and that of CNB was 84%. Using VAB, 2/14 (14.3%) cases upgraded from ductal carcinoma in situ to invasion at surgery and 3/19 (15.8%) using CNB. Following VAB 7/16 (44%) cases required repeat surgery vs 7/24 (29%) after CNB. Both groups recorded significant worsening of functional QOL measures and increased breast pain at follow-up. CONCLUSION: VAB and CNB were equally accurate at diagnosing MM, and no significant differences in surgical outcomes were observed. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The first randomized controlled study of VAB for diagnosis of microcalcification using digital mammography showed no difference in diagnostic accuracy of VAB and CNB, or in the proportion of participants needing repeat non-operative biopsy or second therapeutic operation to treat malignancy.

Mammographic density adds accuracy to both the Tyrer-Cuzick and Gail breast cancer risk models in a prospective UK screening cohort.

INTRODUCTION: The Predicting Risk of Cancer at Screening study in Manchester, UK, is a prospective study of breast cancer risk estimation. It was designed to assess whether mammographic density may help in refinement of breast cancer risk estimation using either the Gail model (Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool) or the Tyrer-Cuzick model (International Breast Intervention Study model). METHODS: Mammographic density was measured at entry as a percentage visual assessment, adjusted for age and body mass index. Tyrer-Cuzick and Gail 10-year risks were based on a questionnaire completed contemporaneously. Breast cancers were identified at the entry screen or shortly thereafter. The contribution of density to risk models was assessed using odds ratios (ORs) with profile likelihood confidence intervals (CIs) and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). The calibration of predicted ORs was estimated as a percentage [(observed vs expected (O/E)] from logistic regression. RESULTS: The analysis included 50,628 women aged 47-73 years who were recruited between October 2009 and September 2013. Of these, 697 had breast cancer diagnosed after enrolment. Median follow-up was 3.2 years. Breast density [interquartile range odds ratio (IQR-OR) 1.48, 95 % CI 1.34-1.63, AUC 0.59] was a slightly stronger univariate risk factor than the Tyrer-Cuzick model [IQR-OR 1.36 (95 % CI 1.25-1.48), O/E 60 % (95 % CI 44-74), AUC 0.57] or the Gail model [IQR-OR 1.22 (95 % CI 1.12-1.33), O/E 46 % (95 % CI 26-65 %), AUC 0.55]. It continued to add information after allowing for Tyrer-Cuzick [IQR-OR 1.47 (95 % CI 1.33-1.62), combined AUC 0.61] or Gail [IQR-OR 1.45 (95 % CI 1.32-1.60), combined AUC 0.59]. CONCLUSIONS: Breast density may be usefully combined with the Tyrer-Cuzick model or the Gail model.

Digital breast tomosynthesis at screening assessment: are two views always necessary?

OBJECTIVE: The current recommendation from the UK National Health Service Breast Screening Programme is that digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) can be used for further assessment of possible screen-detected soft-tissue abnormalities in place of spot compression views and when used should be performed in two projections. The aim of the study was to assess whether two-view DBT is necessary if the abnormality is seen only in one view on initial full-field digital mammography (FFDM). METHODS: 617 cases with possible masses, distortions and asymmetrical densities visualized only in one view on screening FFDM were included. All of these females underwent two-view DBT, clinical examination and ultrasound. The FFDM and DBT findings on each view were compared and correlated with the histological diagnosis. RESULTS: 586 of 617 cases had normal or benign findings on further assessment, and no additional information was obtained on the other DBT view. There were 31 confirmed cancers. In 26 cases (84%), the cancer was seen on the corresponding DBT view. No cancer was seen on the other DBT view alone. Five cancers (16%) were not seen on either view on DBT owing to technical reasons. No cancers would have been missed if only the corresponding DBT view was performed. CONCLUSION: Two-view DBT may not be necessary when used for further assessment of possible screen-detected soft-tissue abnormalities. Larger studies should be undertaken to investigate this further. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: One-view DBT may be adequate in assessing soft-tissue abnormalities seen only on one FFDM view.