Validation of DM-Scan, a computer-assisted tool to assess mammographic density in full-field digital mammograms

We developed a semi-automated tool to assess mammographic density (MD), a phenotype risk marker for breast cancer (BC), in full-field digital images and evaluated its performance testing its reproducibility, comparing our MD estimates with those obtained by visual inspection and using Cumulus, verifying their association with factors that influence MD, and studying the association between MD measures and subsequent BC risk.Three radiologists assessed MD using DM-Scan, the new tool, on 655 processed images (craniocaudal view) obtained in two screening centers. Reproducibility was explored computing pair-wise concordance correlation coefficients (CCC). The agreement between DM-Scan estimates and visual assessment (semi-quantitative scale, 6 categories) was quantified computing weighted kappa statistics (quadratic weights). DM-Scan and Cumulus readings were compared using CCC. Variation of DM-Scan measures by age, body mass index (BMI) and other MD modifiers was tested in regression mixed models with mammographic device as a random-effect term.The association between DM-Scan measures and subsequent BC was estimated in a case–control study. All BC cases in screening attendants (2007–2010) at a center with full-field digital mammography were matched by age and screening year with healthy controls (127 pairs). DM-Scan was used to blindly assess MD in available mammograms (112 cases/119 controls). Unconditional logistic models were fitted, including age, menopausal status and BMI as confounders.DM-Scan estimates were very reliable (pairwise CCC: 0.921, 0.928 and 0.916). They showed a reasonable agreement with visual MD assessment (weighted kappa ranging 0.79-0.81). DM-Scan and Cumulus measures were highly concordant (CCC ranging 0.80-0.84), but ours tended to be higher (4%-5% on average). As expected, DM-Scan estimates varied with age, BMI, parity and family history of BC. Finally, DM-Scan measures were significantly associated with BC (p-trend=0.005). Taking MD<7% as reference, OR per categories of MD were: OR7%-17%=1.32 (95% CI=0.59-2.99), OR17%-28%=2.28 (95% CI=1.03-5.04) and OR>=29%=3.10 (95% CI=1.35-7.14). Our results confirm that DM-Scan is a reliable tool to assess MD in full-field digital mammograms.

[1]  V Shane Pankratz,et al.  Comparison of percent density from raw and processed full-field digital mammography data , 2013, Breast Cancer Research.

[2]  S. Duffy,et al.  Tamoxifen-induced reduction in mammographic density and breast cancer risk reduction: a nested case-control study. , 2011, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[3]  V. Shane Pankratz,et al.  Mammographic Breast Density as a General Marker of Breast Cancer Risk , 2007, Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention.

[4]  N. Boyd,et al.  Mammographic density and breast cancer risk: current understanding and future prospects , 2011, Breast Cancer Research.

[5]  X. Castells,et al.  Reduction in false-positive results after introduction of digital mammography: analysis from four population-based breast cancer screening programs in Spain. , 2011, Radiology.

[6]  T. Sellers,et al.  The influence of mammogram acquisition on the mammographic density and breast cancer association in the mayo mammography health study cohort , 2012, Breast Cancer Research.

[7]  Despina Kontos,et al.  Reader variability in breast density estimation from full-field digital mammograms: the effect of image postprocessing on relative and absolute measures. , 2013, Academic radiology.

[8]  M. Peris,et al.  Adult weight gain, fat distribution and mammographic density in Spanish pre- and post-menopausal women (DDM-Spain) , 2012, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[9]  M. Yaffe.  Mammographic density. Measurement of mammographic density , 2008, Breast Cancer Research.

[10]  Michael J. Carston,et al.  Texture Features from Mammographic Images and Risk of Breast Cancer , 2009, Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention.

[11]  Rafael Llobet,et al.  Women’s features and inter-/intra-rater agreement on mammographic density assessment in full-field digital mammograms (DDM-SPAIN) , 2012, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[12]  N. Boyd,et al.  Analysis of mammographic density and breast cancer risk from digitized mammograms. , 1998, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[13]  J M Bland,et al.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement , 1986 .

[14]  N. Ascunce,et al.  Cancer screening in Spain. , 2010, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[15]  J. Brady,et al.  Estimation of compressed breast thickness during mammography. , 1998, The British journal of radiology.

[16]  A. Beckett,et al.  AKUFO AND IBARAPA. , 1965, Lancet.

[17]  M. Nielsen,et al.  A novel and automatic mammographic texture resemblance marker is an independent risk factor for breast cancer. , 2011, Cancer epidemiology.

[18]  V. McCormack,et al.  Breast Density and Parenchymal Patterns as Markers of Breast Cancer Risk: A Meta-analysis , 2006, Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention.

[19]  L. Lin,et al.  A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. , 1989, Biometrics.

[20]  Jennifer A Harvey,et al.  Quantitative Assessment of Percent Breast Density: Analog versus Digital Acquisition , 2004, Technology in cancer research & treatment.

[21]  S. Cummings,et al.  Personalizing Mammography by Breast Density and Other Risk Factors for Breast Cancer: Analysis of Health Benefits and Cost-Effectiveness , 2011, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[22]  D. Altman,et al.  STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT , 1986, The Lancet.

[23]  Stephen W Duffy,et al.  Using mammographic density to predict breast cancer risk: dense area or percentage dense area , 2010, Breast Cancer Research.

[24]  Jack Cuzick,et al.  Clinical and epidemiological issues in mammographic density , 2012, Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology.

[25]  Marina Pollán,et al.  Evaluation of mammographic density patterns: reproducibility and concordance among scales , 2010, BMC Cancer.

[26]  Bernard Rosner,et al.  Mammographic breast density and subsequent risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women according to tumor characteristics. , 2011, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[27]  Mary Wilson,et al.  Assessing Individual Breast Cancer Risk within the U.K. National Health Service Breast Screening Program: A New Paradigm for Cancer Prevention , 2012, Cancer Prevention Research.

[28]  M. Peris,et al.  Alcohol, tobacco, and mammographic density: a population-based study , 2011, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[29]  Jingmei Li,et al.  High-throughput mammographic-density measurement: a tool for risk prediction of breast cancer , 2012, Breast Cancer Research.