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

Breast screening: What can the interval cancer review teach us? Are we perhaps being a bit too hard on ourselves?

Purpose The aim of this study was to determine the features that make interval cancers apparent on the preceding screening mammogram and determine whether changes in the ways of performing the interval cancer review will affect the true interval cancer rate. Materials and methods This study was approved by the clinical governance committee. Mammograms of women diagnosed with an interval cancer were included in the study if they had been allocated to either the “suspicious signs” group or “subtle signs” group, during the historic interval cancer review. Three radiologists, individually and blinded to the site of interval cancer, reviewed the mammograms and documented the presence, site, characteristics and classification of any abnormality. Findings were compared with the appearances of the abnormality at the site of subsequent cancer development by a different breast radiologist. The chi-squared test was used in the analysis of the results, seeking associations between recall concordance and cancer mammographic or histological characteristics. Results 111/590 interval cancers fulfilled the study inclusion criteria. In 17% of the cases none of the readers identified the relevant abnormality on the screening mammogram. 1/3 readers identified the relevant lesion in 22% of the cases, 2/3 readers in 28% of cases and all 3 readers in 33% of cases. The commonest unanimously recalled abnormality was microcalcification and the most challenging mammographic abnormality to detect was asymmetric density. We did not find any statistically significant association between recall concordance and time to interval cancer, position of lesion in the breast, breast density or cancer grade. Conclusion Even the simple step of performing an independent blinded review of interval cancers reduces the rate of interval cancers classified as missed by up to 39%