The mammographic density of a mass is a significant predictor of breast cancer.

PURPOSE To determine whether the mammographic density of noncalcified solid breast masses is associated with malignancy and to measure the agreement between prospective and retrospective assessment. MATERIALS AND METHODS The institutional review board approved this study and waived informed consent. Three hundred forty-eight consecutive breast masses in 328 women who underwent image-guided or surgical biopsy between October 2005 and December 2007 were included. All 348 biopsy-proved masses were randomized and assigned to a radiologist who was blinded to biopsy results for retrospective assessment by using the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (retrospectively assessed data set). Clinical radiologists prospectively assessed the density of 180 of these masses (prospectively assessed data set). Pathologic result at biopsy was the reference standard. Benign masses were followed for at least 1 year by linking each patient to a cancer registry. Univariate analyses were performed on the retrospectively assessed data set. The association of mass density and malignancy was examined by creating a logistic model for the prospectively assessed data set. Agreement between prospective and retrospective assessments was calculated by using the κ statistic. RESULTS In the retrospectively assessed data set, 70.2% of high-density masses were malignant, and 22.3% of the isodense or low-density masses were malignant (P < .0001). In the prospective logistic model, high density (odds ratio, 6.6), irregular shape (odds ratio, 9.9), spiculated margin (odds ratio, 20.3), and age (β = 0.09, P < .0001) were significantly associated with the probability of malignancy. The κ value for prospective-retrospective agreement of mass density was 0.53. CONCLUSION High mass density is significantly associated with malignancy in both retrospectively and prospectively assessed data sets, with moderate prospective-retrospective agreement. Radiologists should consider mass density as a valuable descriptor that can stratify risk. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.10100328/-/DC1.

[1]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[2]  S Ciatto,et al.  Nonpalpable lesions detected with mammography: review of 512 consecutive cases. , 1987, Radiology.

[3]  F. Hall,et al.  Nonpalpable breast lesions: recommendations for biopsy based on suspicion of carcinoma at mammography. , 1988, Radiology.

[4]  M A Helvie,et al.  Mammographic follow-up of low-suspicion lesions: compliance rate and diagnostic yield. , 1991, Radiology.

[5]  L. Bassett,et al.  Diagnostic importance of the radiographic density of noncalcified breast masses: analysis of 91 lesions. , 1991, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[6]  X. Varas,et al.  Nonpalpable, probably benign lesions: role of follow-up mammography. , 1992, Radiology.

[7]  R. Cory,et al.  The mammographic density of breast cancer. , 1993, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[8]  E. Sickles.  Nonpalpable, circumscribed, noncalcified solid breast masses: likelihood of malignancy based on lesion size and age of patient. , 1994, Radiology.

[9]  C. Floyd,et al.  Breast cancer: prediction with artificial neural network based on BI-RADS standardized lexicon. , 1995, Radiology.

[10]  C. D'Orsi.  The American College of Radiology mammography lexicon: an initial attempt to standardize terminology. , 1996, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[11]  C. Floyd,et al.  Breast imaging reporting and data system standardized mammography lexicon: observer variability in lesion description. , 1996, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[12]  L. Liberman,et al.  The breast imaging reporting and data system: positive predictive value of mammographic features and final assessment categories. , 1998, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[13]  S. Orel,et al.  BI-RADS categorization as a predictor of malignancy. , 1999, Radiology.

[14]  M. Lacquement,et al.  Positive predictive value of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. , 1999, Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

[15]  P. Langenberg,et al.  Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: inter- and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment. , 2000, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[16]  D. Salas,et al.  Short-term follow-up results in 795 nonpalpable probably benign lesions detected at screening mammography. , 2001, Radiology.

[17]  Mark B Dignan,et al.  Concordance of breast imaging reporting and data system assessments and management recommendations in screening mammography. , 2002, Radiology.

[18]  X. Varas,et al.  Revisiting the mammographic follow-up of BI-RADS category 3 lesions. , 2002, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[19]  H. Zonderland,et al.  The positive predictive value of the breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) as a method of quality assessment in breast imaging in a hospital population , 2004, European Radiology.

[20]  Charles E. Kahn,et al.  Knowledge Discovery from Structured Mammography Reports Using Inductive Logic Programming , 2005, AMIA.

[21]  Steven P Poplack,et al.  Screening mammography: costs and use of screening-related services. , 2005, Radiology.

[22]  M. Mainiero,et al.  BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value. , 2006, Radiology.

[23]  Emily White,et al.  Lesion and patient characteristics associated with malignancy after a probably benign finding on community practice mammography. , 2008, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.