Mammographic Breast Density Assessment Using Automated Volumetric Software and Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS) Categorization by Expert Radiologists

ContextMammographic density is a strong independent risk factor for breast cancer, whose prevalence in acromegaly is still controversial.ObjectiveTo compare breast density in premenopausal acromegalic patients and controls and to determine whether density correlated with disease duration, GH, and IGF1 levels.Design, setting and participantsA prospective study involving 30 patients and 60 controls matched for age and body mass index.InterventionsA quantitative computer-aided mammographic density estimation (MDEST) and a qualitative blind evaluation by two experienced radiologists using the breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) was performed. Totally, 60 (acromegaly) and 120 (controls) craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique mammograms were evaluated in both patients and controls.Main outcome measuresBreast density.ResultsPatients showed a significantly (P<0.01) increased mammographic breast density with both methods (MDEST: 0.33±0.21% and BI-RADS category: 2.81±0.78) in comparison with controls (MDEST: 0.26±0.19% and BI-RADS category: 2.35±0.61). The agreement between the two methods and inter-observer agreement between the two radiologists were excellent (k=0.63 and k=0.85). In patients grouped according to disease activity (17 controlled and 13 uncontrolled) and medical therapy (15 treated and 15 untreated), no differences were found. All these groups had significantly increased mammographic breast density compared with controls (P<0.01).A positive correlation was found between mammographic breast density, IGF1 values and disease duration (r=0.29 and r=0.39), whereas it was not found with GH (r=−0.02).ConclusionsMammographic breast density in premenopausal acromegalic patients is significantly higher than controls and positively correlated with IGF1 and disease duration.

Download Full-text

Mammographic Breast Density Profile of Jordanian Women With Normal and Breast Cancer Findings

Breast Cancer Basic and Clinical Research ◽

10.1177/1178223420921381 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 14 ◽

pp. 117822342092138

Author(s):

Dana S Al-Mousa ◽

Maram Alakhras ◽

Kelly M Spuur ◽

Haytham Alewaidat ◽

Mohammad Rawashdeh ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Breast Cancer ◽

Breast Density ◽

Breast Imaging ◽

Normal Group ◽

University Hospital ◽

Mammographic Breast Density ◽

Screening Guidelines ◽

Cancer Group ◽

Bonferroni Adjustment ◽

Breast Cancer Group

Purpose: To document the mammographic breast density (MBD) distribution of Jordanian women and the relationship with MBD with age. Correlation between breast cancer diagnosis and density was also explored. Methods: A retrospective review of 660 screening mammograms from King Abdullah University Hospital was conducted. Mammograms were classified into 2 groups: normal (return to routine screening) and breast cancer and rated using the American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 5th edition for MBD. The association between MBD and age was assessed by descriptive analyses and Kruskal-Wallis test. To compare between normal and breast cancer groups, chi-square post hoc tests with Bonferroni adjustment was used. Results: Groups consisted of 73.9% (n = 488) normal group and 26.1% (n = 172) breast cancer group. A significant inverse relationship was demonstrated between age and MBD among the normal ( r = −.319, P < .01) and breast cancer group ( r = −.569, P < .01). In total, 69% (n = 336) of women in the normal group and 71% (n = 122) in the breast cancer group and 79.1% (n = 159) of the normal group and 100% (n = 48) of the breast cancer group aged 40 to 49 years reported high MBD (ACR BI-RADS c or d). Conclusions: Most of women in both the normal and breast cancer groups evidenced increased MBD. Increased MBD was inversely proportional to age. As MBD has a known link to increased breast cancer risk and the decreased sensitivity of mammography and it is vital that future screening guidelines for Jordanian women consider the unique breast density distribution of this population.

Download Full-text

Comparison of inter- and intra-observer variability of breast density assessments using the fourth and fifth editions of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System

European Journal of Radiology Open ◽

10.1016/j.ejro.2018.04.002 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 5 ◽

pp. 67-72 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

Afsaneh Alikhassi ◽

Hamed Esmaili Gourabi ◽

Masoud Baikpour

Keyword(s):

Breast Density ◽

Breast Imaging ◽

Data System ◽

Observer Variability

Download Full-text

Mammographic Breast Density Assessment Using Deep Learning: Clinical Implementation

Radiology ◽

10.1148/radiol.2018180694 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 290 (1) ◽

pp. 52-58 ◽

Cited By ~ 56

Author(s):

Constance D. Lehman ◽

Adam Yala ◽

Tal Schuster ◽

Brian Dontchos ◽

Manisha Bahl ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Deep Learning ◽

Breast Density ◽

Mammographic Breast Density ◽

Clinical Implementation ◽

Density Assessment

Download Full-text

Evaluation of Quantra Hologic Volumetric Computerized Breast Density Software in Comparison With Manual Interpretation in a Diverse Population

Breast Cancer Basic and Clinical Research ◽

10.1177/1178223418759296 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 12 ◽

pp. 117822341875929

Author(s):

Gloria Richard-Davis ◽

Brianna Whittemore ◽

Anthony Disher ◽

Valerie Montgomery Rice ◽

Rathinasamy B Lenin ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Breast Cancer ◽

High Risk ◽

Risk Stratification ◽

Breast Density ◽

Gold Standard ◽

Assessment Tool ◽

Low Risk ◽

Mammographic Breast Density ◽

Cutoff Value ◽

Density Assessment

Objective: Increased mammographic breast density is a well-established risk factor for breast cancer development, regardless of age or ethnic background. The current gold standard for categorizing breast density consists of a radiologist estimation of percent density according to the American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) criteria. This study compares paired qualitative interpretations of breast density on digital mammograms with quantitative measurement of density using Hologic’s Food and Drug Administration–approved R2 Quantra volumetric breast density assessment tool. Our goal was to find the best cutoff value of Quantra-calculated breast density for stratifying patients accurately into high-risk and low-risk breast density categories. Methods: Screening digital mammograms from 385 subjects, aged 18 to 64 years, were evaluated. These mammograms were interpreted by a radiologist using the ACR’s BI-RADS density method, and had quantitative density measured using the R2 Quantra breast density assessment tool. The appropriate cutoff for breast density–based risk stratification using Quantra software was calculated using manually determined BI-RADS scores as a gold standard, in which scores of D3/D4 denoted high-risk densities and D1/D2 denoted low-risk densities. Results: The best cutoff value for risk stratification using Quantra-calculated breast density was found to be 14.0%, yielding a sensitivity of 65%, specificity of 77%, and positive and negative predictive values of 75% and 69%, respectively. Under bootstrap analysis, the best cutoff value had a mean ± SD of 13.70% ± 0.89%. Conclusions: Our study is the first to publish on a North American population that assesses the accuracy of the R2 Quantra system at breast density stratification. Quantitative breast density measures will improve accuracy and reliability of density determination, assisting future researchers to accurately calculate breast cancer risks associated with density increase.

Download Full-text