Volumetric versus area-based density assessment: comparisons using automated quantitative measurements from a large screening cohort

Mammographic density is an established risk factor for breast cancer. However, area-based density (ABD) measured in 2D mammograms consider the projection, rather than the actual volume of dense tissue which may be an important limitation. With the increasing utilization of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in screening, there’s an opportunity to routinely estimate volumetric breast density (VBD). In this study, we investigate associations between DBT-VBD and ABD extracted from standard-dose mammography (DM) and synthetic 2D digital mammography (sDM) increasingly replacing DM. We retrospectively analyzed bilateral imaging data from a random sample of 1000 women, acquired over a transitional period at our institution when all women had DBT, sDM and DM acquired as part of their routine breast screening. For each exam, ABD was measured in DM and sDM images with the publicly available “LIBRA” software, while DBT-VBD was measured using a previously validated, fully-automated computer algorithm. Spearman correlation (r) was used to compare VBD to ABD measurements. For each density measure, we also estimated the within woman intraclass correlation (ICC) and finally, to compare to clinical assessments, we performed analysis of variance (ANOVA) to evaluate the variation to the assigned clinical BI-RADS breast density category for each woman. DBT-VBD was moderately correlated to ABD from DM (r=0.70) and sDM (r=0.66). All density measures had strong bilateral symmetry (ICC = [0.85, 0.95]), but were significantly different across BI-RADS density categories (ANOVA, p<0.001). Our results contribute to further elaborating the clinical implications of breast density measures estimated with DBT which may better capture the volumetric amount of dense tissue within the breast than area-based measures and visual assessment.

[1]  Emily F. Conant,et al.  Fully Automated Quantitative Estimation of Volumetric Breast Density from Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Images: Preliminary Results and Comparison with Digital Mammography and MR Imaging. , 2016, Radiology.

[2]  Norman Boyd,et al.  Mammographic Density and Breast Cancer Risk: Evaluation of a Novel Method of Measuring Breast Tissue Volumes , 2009, Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention.

[3]  C. D'Orsi Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) , 2018 .

[4]  Andriy I Bandos,et al.  Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projection images: comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images. , 2014, Radiology.

[5]  B. Keller,et al.  Agreement between Breast Percentage Density Estimations from Standard-Dose versus Synthetic Digital Mammograms: Results from a Large Screening Cohort Using Automated Measures. , 2017, Radiology.

[6]  S. Ciatto,et al.  Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. , 2013, The Lancet. Oncology.

[7]  E. Conant,et al.  Beyond BI-RADS Density: A Call for Quantification in the Breast Imaging Clinic. , 2018, Radiology.

[8]  K. Kerlikowske,et al.  Variability and accuracy in mammographic interpretation using the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. , 1998, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[9]  E. Conant,et al.  Beyond breast density: a review on the advancing role of parenchymal texture analysis in breast cancer risk assessment , 2016, Breast Cancer Research.

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

[11]  D. Easton,et al.  Breast cancer screening: time to target women at risk , 2013, British Journal of Cancer.

[12]  Jingmei Li,et al.  Digital mammographic density and breast cancer risk: a case–control study of six alternative density assessment methods , 2014, Breast Cancer Research.

[13]  B. Keller,et al.  Estimation of breast percent density in raw and processed full field digital mammography images via adaptive fuzzy c-means clustering and support vector machine segmentation. , 2012, Medical physics.