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

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

This work was supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) and Genesis Breast Cancer Prevention Appeal (references GA10-033 and GA13-006). This article presents independent research funded by the NIHR under its Programme Grants for Applied Research (grant RP-PG-0707-10031). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. The authors also acknowledge the support of Medical Research Council Health eResearch Centre grant MR/K006665/1

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

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

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

Abstract 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