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

Randomised controlled trial of stereotactic 11g 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