Using Volumetric Breast Density to Quantify the Potential Masking Risk of Mammographic Density

被引:70
作者
Destounis, Stamatia [1 ]
Johnston, Lisa [2 ]
Highnam, Ralph [2 ]
Arieno, Andrea [1 ]
Morgan, Renee [1 ]
Chan, Ariane [2 ]
机构
[1] Elizabeth Wende Breast Care, Dept Breast Imaging, 170 Sawgrass Dr, Rochester, NY 14620 USA
[2] Volpara Solut Ltd, Wellington, New Zealand
关键词
breast cancer risk; breast density; interval cancer; mammography; CANCER RISK; SCREENING MAMMOGRAPHY; WOMEN; INTERVAL; TRIAL;
D O I
10.2214/AJR.16.16489
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
OBJECTIVE. The purposes of this study were to compare BI-RADS density categories with quantitative volumetric breast density (VBD) for the reporting of mammographic sensitivity and to identify which patient factors are most predictive of a diagnosis of interval cancer of the breast versus screen-detected cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS. This retrospective study included screen-detected cancers (n = 652) and interval cancers (n = 119) identified between January 2009 and December 2012. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to determine which patient factors are predictive of a diagnosis of interval cancer. Sensitivity (screen-detected cancer / [screen-detected cancer + interval cancer]) was determined with the BI-RADS 4th edition density categories and an automated equivalent density grade obtained with a proprietary tool. Sensitivity changes within automated density grade categories were investigated by use of quantitative thresholds at the midpoints of each category. RESULTS. In univariate analysis, age, menopausal status, and breast density were associated with a diagnosis of interval cancer. Of these risk factors, breast density was the only independent factor whether it was assessed by visual BI-RADS category (odds ratio, 3.54; 95% CI, 1.55-8.10), automated density grade (odds ratio, 4.68; 95% CI, 2.26-9.67), or VBD (odds ratio, 4.51; 95% CI, 1.92-10.61). Sensitivity decreased consistently across increasing automated density grade categories from fatty to extremely dense (95%, 89%, 83%, 65%) and less so for visual BI-RADS (82%, 90%, 84%, 66%). Further dichotomization with VBD cutoffs showed a striking linear relation between VBD and sensitivity (R-2 = 0.959). CONCLUSION. In this study, breast density was the only risk factor significantly associated with a diagnosis of interval cancer versus screen-detected cancer. Quantitative VBD captures the potential masking risk of breast density more precisely than does the widely used visual BI-RADS density classification system.
引用
收藏
页码:222 / 227
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Mammographic breast density and breast cancer risk: Evaluation using volumetric breast density software
    Koshi, Suzanne
    Singla, Veenu
    Singh, Tulika
    Prabhakar, Nidhi
    Bal, Amanjit
    Singh, Gurpreet
    JOURNAL OF CANCER RESEARCH AND THERAPEUTICS, 2020, 16 (06) : 1258 - 1264
  • [2] Can quantitative evaluation of mammographic breast density, "volumetric measurement", predict the masking risk with dense breast tissue? Investigation by comparison with subjective visual estimation by Japanese radiologists
    Oiwa, Mikinao
    Endo, Tokiko
    Suda, Namiko
    Morita, Takako
    Sato, Yasuyuki
    Kawasaki, Tomonori
    Ichihara, Shu
    BREAST CANCER, 2019, 26 (03) : 349 - 358
  • [3] Mammographic Breast Density: Effect on Imaging and Breast Cancer Risk
    Pinsky, Renee W.
    Helvie, Mark A.
    JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL COMPREHENSIVE CANCER NETWORK, 2010, 8 (10): : 1157 - 1164
  • [4] Agreement of Mammographic Measures of Volumetric Breast Density to MRI
    Wang, Jeff
    Azziz, Ania
    Fan, Bo
    Malkov, Serghei
    Klifa, Catherine
    Newitt, David
    Yitta, Silaja
    Hylton, Nola
    Kerlikowske, Karla
    Shepherd, John A.
    PLOS ONE, 2013, 8 (12):
  • [5] Mammographic breast density and risk of breast cancer: Masking bias or causality?
    Carla H. van Gils
    Johannes D.M. Otten
    André L.M. Verbeek
    Jan H.C.L. Hendriks
    European Journal of Epidemiology, 1998, 14 : 315 - 320
  • [6] Mammographic breast density and risk of breast cancer: Masking bias or causality?
    van Gils, CH
    Otten, JDM
    Verbeek, ALM
    Hendriks, JHCL
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1998, 14 (04) : 315 - 320
  • [7] Volumetric Breast Density Combined with Masking Risk: Enhanced Characterization of Breast Density from Mammography Images
    Fieselmann, Andreas
    Jerebko, Anna K.
    Mertelmeier, Thomas
    BREAST IMAGING, IWDM 2016, 2016, 9699 : 486 - 492
  • [8] Quantification of mammographic masking risk with volumetric breast density maps: How to select women for supplemental screening
    Holland, Katharina
    van Gils, Carla H.
    Wanders, Johanna O. P.
    Mann, Ritse M.
    Karssemeijer, Nico
    MEDICAL IMAGING 2016: COMPUTER-AIDED DIAGNOSIS, 2015, 9785
  • [9] Quantification of masking risk in screening mammography with volumetric breast density maps
    Holland, Katharina
    van Gils, Carla H.
    Mann, Ritse M.
    Karssemeijer, Nico
    BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT, 2017, 162 (03) : 541 - 548
  • [10] Automated Volumetric Mammographic Breast Density Measurements May Underestimate Percent Breast Density for High-density Breasts
    Rahbar, Kareem
    Gubern-Merida, Albert
    Patrie, James T.
    Harvey, Jennifer A.
    ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 2017, 24 (12) : 1561 - 1569