Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 1/2017

Open Access 01-02-2017 | Epidemiology

Volumetric breast density affects performance of digital screening mammography

Authors: Johanna O. P. Wanders, Katharina Holland, Wouter B. Veldhuis, Ritse M. Mann, Ruud M. Pijnappel, Petra H. M. Peeters, Carla H. van Gils, Nico Karssemeijer

Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To determine to what extent automatically measured volumetric mammographic density influences screening performance when using digital mammography (DM).

Methods

We collected a consecutive series of 111,898 DM examinations (2003–2011) from one screening unit of the Dutch biennial screening program (age 50–75 years). Volumetric mammographic density was automatically assessed using Volpara. We determined screening performance measures for four density categories comparable to the American College of Radiology (ACR) breast density categories.

Results

Of all the examinations, 21.6% were categorized as density category 1 (‘almost entirely fatty’) and 41.5, 28.9, and 8.0% as category 2–4 (‘extremely dense’), respectively. We identified 667 screen-detected and 234 interval cancers. Interval cancer rates were 0.7, 1.9, 2.9, and 4.4‰ and false positive rates were 11.2, 15.1, 18.2, and 23.8‰ for categories 1–4, respectively (both p-trend < 0.001). The screening sensitivity, calculated as the proportion of screen-detected among the total of screen-detected and interval tumors, was lower in higher density categories: 85.7, 77.6, 69.5, and 61.0% for categories 1–4, respectively (p-trend < 0.001).

Conclusions

Volumetric mammographic density, automatically measured on digital mammograms, impacts screening performance measures along the same patterns as established with ACR breast density categories. Since measuring breast density fully automatically has much higher reproducibility than visual assessment, this automatic method could help with implementing density-based supplemental screening.
Literature
1.
go back to reference McCormack VA, dos Santos Silva I (2006) Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 15(6):1159–1169CrossRef McCormack VA, dos Santos Silva I (2006) Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 15(6):1159–1169CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Vachon CM, van Gils CH, Sellers TA, Ghosh K, Pruthi S, Brandt KR et al (2007) Mammographic density, breast cancer risk and risk prediction. Breast Cancer Res: BCR 9(6):217CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Vachon CM, van Gils CH, Sellers TA, Ghosh K, Pruthi S, Brandt KR et al (2007) Mammographic density, breast cancer risk and risk prediction. Breast Cancer Res: BCR 9(6):217CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
go back to reference Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ, Sun L, Stone J, Fishell E et al (2007) Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 356(3):227–236CrossRefPubMed Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ, Sun L, Stone J, Fishell E et al (2007) Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 356(3):227–236CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Pisano ED, Hendrick RE, Yaffe MJ, Baum JK, Acharyya S, Cormack JB et al (2008) Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST. Radiology 246(2):376–383CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Pisano ED, Hendrick RE, Yaffe MJ, Baum JK, Acharyya S, Cormack JB et al (2008) Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST. Radiology 246(2):376–383CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
go back to reference Kerlikowske K, Zhu W, Tosteson AN, Sprague BL, Tice JA, Lehman CD et al (2015) Identifying women with dense breasts at high risk for interval cancer: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med 162(10):673–681CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Kerlikowske K, Zhu W, Tosteson AN, Sprague BL, Tice JA, Lehman CD et al (2015) Identifying women with dense breasts at high risk for interval cancer: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med 162(10):673–681CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
go back to reference Prummel MV, Muradali D, Shumak R, Majpruz V, Brown P, Jiang H et al (2015) Digital compared with screen-film mammography: measures of diagnostic accuracy among women screened in the Ontario breast screening program. Radiology 150–733 Prummel MV, Muradali D, Shumak R, Majpruz V, Brown P, Jiang H et al (2015) Digital compared with screen-film mammography: measures of diagnostic accuracy among women screened in the Ontario breast screening program. Radiology 150–733
9.
go back to reference Ciatto S, Houssami N, Apruzzese A, Bassetti E, Brancato B, Carozzi F et al (2005) Categorizing breast mammographic density: intra- and interobserver reproducibility of BI-RADS density categories. Breast 14(4):269–275CrossRefPubMed Ciatto S, Houssami N, Apruzzese A, Bassetti E, Brancato B, Carozzi F et al (2005) Categorizing breast mammographic density: intra- and interobserver reproducibility of BI-RADS density categories. Breast 14(4):269–275CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Gard CC, Aiello Bowles EJ, Miglioretti DL, Taplin SH, Rutter CM (2015) Misclassification of breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) mammographic density and implications for breast density reporting legislation. Breast J 21(5):481–489CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Gard CC, Aiello Bowles EJ, Miglioretti DL, Taplin SH, Rutter CM (2015) Misclassification of breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) mammographic density and implications for breast density reporting legislation. Breast J 21(5):481–489CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
go back to reference Gweon HM, Youk JH, Kim JA, Son EJ (2013) Radiologist assessment of breast density by BI-RADS categories versus fully automated volumetric assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 201(3):692–697CrossRefPubMed Gweon HM, Youk JH, Kim JA, Son EJ (2013) Radiologist assessment of breast density by BI-RADS categories versus fully automated volumetric assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 201(3):692–697CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Redondo A, Comas M, Macia F, Ferrer F, Murta-Nascimento C, Maristany MT et al (2012) Inter- and intraradiologist variability in the BI-RADS assessment and breast density categories for screening mammograms. Br J Radiol 85(1019):1465–1470CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Redondo A, Comas M, Macia F, Ferrer F, Murta-Nascimento C, Maristany MT et al (2012) Inter- and intraradiologist variability in the BI-RADS assessment and breast density categories for screening mammograms. Br J Radiol 85(1019):1465–1470CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
go back to reference Brandt KR, Scott CG, Ma L, Mahmoudzadeh AP, Jensen MR, Whaley DH et al (2015) Comparison of clinical and automated breast density measurements: implications for risk prediction and supplemental screening. Radiology 151–261 Brandt KR, Scott CG, Ma L, Mahmoudzadeh AP, Jensen MR, Whaley DH et al (2015) Comparison of clinical and automated breast density measurements: implications for risk prediction and supplemental screening. Radiology 151–261
14.
go back to reference Gubern-Merida A, Kallenberg M, Platel B, Mann RM, Marti R, Karssemeijer N (2014) Volumetric breast density estimation from full-field digital mammograms: a validation study. PLoS ONE 9(1):e85952CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Gubern-Merida A, Kallenberg M, Platel B, Mann RM, Marti R, Karssemeijer N (2014) Volumetric breast density estimation from full-field digital mammograms: a validation study. PLoS ONE 9(1):e85952CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
go back to reference Seo JM, Ko ES, Han BK, Ko EY, Shin JH, Hahn SY (2013) Automated volumetric breast density estimation: a comparison with visual assessment. Clin Radiol 68(7):690–695CrossRefPubMed Seo JM, Ko ES, Han BK, Ko EY, Shin JH, Hahn SY (2013) Automated volumetric breast density estimation: a comparison with visual assessment. Clin Radiol 68(7):690–695CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Lee HN, Sohn YM, Han KH (2015) Comparison of mammographic density estimation by Volpara software with radiologists’ visual assessment: analysis of clinical-radiologic factors affecting discrepancy between them. Acta Radiol 56(9):1061–1068CrossRefPubMed Lee HN, Sohn YM, Han KH (2015) Comparison of mammographic density estimation by Volpara software with radiologists’ visual assessment: analysis of clinical-radiologic factors affecting discrepancy between them. Acta Radiol 56(9):1061–1068CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Destounis S, Johnston L, Highnam R, Arieno A, Morgan R, Chan A (2016) Using volumetric breast density to quantify the potential masking risk of mammographic density. AJR. Am J Roentgenol 1–6 Destounis S, Johnston L, Highnam R, Arieno A, Morgan R, Chan A (2016) Using volumetric breast density to quantify the potential masking risk of mammographic density. AJR. Am J Roentgenol 1–6
18.
go back to reference Bluekens AM, Karssemeijer N, Beijerinck D, Deurenberg JJ, van Engen RE, Broeders MJ et al (2010) Consequences of digital mammography in population-based breast cancer screening: initial changes and long-term impact on referral rates. Eur Radiol 20(9):2067–2073CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Bluekens AM, Karssemeijer N, Beijerinck D, Deurenberg JJ, van Engen RE, Broeders MJ et al (2010) Consequences of digital mammography in population-based breast cancer screening: initial changes and long-term impact on referral rates. Eur Radiol 20(9):2067–2073CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
go back to reference Karssemeijer N, Bluekens AM, Beijerinck D, Deurenberg JJ, Beekman M, Visser R et al (2009) Breast cancer screening results 5 years after introduction of digital mammography in a population-based screening program. Radiology 253(2):353–358CrossRefPubMed Karssemeijer N, Bluekens AM, Beijerinck D, Deurenberg JJ, Beekman M, Visser R et al (2009) Breast cancer screening results 5 years after introduction of digital mammography in a population-based screening program. Radiology 253(2):353–358CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Bluekens AM, Holland R, Karssemeijer N, Broeders MJ, den Heeten GJ (2012) Comparison of digital screening mammography and screen-film mammography in the early detection of clinically relevant cancers: a multicenter study. Radiology 265(3):707–714CrossRefPubMed Bluekens AM, Holland R, Karssemeijer N, Broeders MJ, den Heeten GJ (2012) Comparison of digital screening mammography and screen-film mammography in the early detection of clinically relevant cancers: a multicenter study. Radiology 265(3):707–714CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Highnam R, Brady M, Yaffe MJ, Karssemeijer N, Harvey J (2010) Robust breast composition measurement—volpara (TM). Lect Notes Comput Sci 6136:342–349CrossRef Highnam R, Brady M, Yaffe MJ, Karssemeijer N, Harvey J (2010) Robust breast composition measurement—volpara (TM). Lect Notes Comput Sci 6136:342–349CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Weigel S, Heindel W, Heidrich J, Hense HW, Heidinger O (2016) Digital mammography screening: sensitivity of the programme dependent on breast density. Eur Radiol Weigel S, Heindel W, Heidrich J, Hense HW, Heidinger O (2016) Digital mammography screening: sensitivity of the programme dependent on breast density. Eur Radiol
23.
go back to reference Kerlikowske K, Hubbard RA, Miglioretti DL, Geller BM, Yankaskas BC, Lehman CD et al (2011) Comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in community practice in the United States: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med 155(8):493–502CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Kerlikowske K, Hubbard RA, Miglioretti DL, Geller BM, Yankaskas BC, Lehman CD et al (2011) Comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in community practice in the United States: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med 155(8):493–502CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
go back to reference Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum JK, Acharyya S et al (2005) Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353(17):1773–1783CrossRefPubMed Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum JK, Acharyya S et al (2005) Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353(17):1773–1783CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Hambly NM, McNicholas MM, Phelan N, Hargaden GC, O’Doherty A, Flanagan FL (2009) Comparison of digital mammography and screen-film mammography in breast cancer screening: a review in the Irish breast screening program. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193(4):1010–1018CrossRefPubMed Hambly NM, McNicholas MM, Phelan N, Hargaden GC, O’Doherty A, Flanagan FL (2009) Comparison of digital mammography and screen-film mammography in breast cancer screening: a review in the Irish breast screening program. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193(4):1010–1018CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference van Luijt PA, Fracheboud J, Heijnsdijk EA, den Heeten GJ, de Koning HJ (2013) Nation-wide data on screening performance during the transition to digital mammography: observations in 6 million screens. Eur J Cancer 49(16):3517–3525CrossRefPubMed van Luijt PA, Fracheboud J, Heijnsdijk EA, den Heeten GJ, de Koning HJ (2013) Nation-wide data on screening performance during the transition to digital mammography: observations in 6 million screens. Eur J Cancer 49(16):3517–3525CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Henderson LM, Benefield T, Nyante SJ, Marsh MW, Greenwood-Hickman MA, Schroeder BF (2015) Performance of digital screening mammography in a population-based cohort of black and white women. Cancer Causes Control: CCC 26(10):1495–1499CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Henderson LM, Benefield T, Nyante SJ, Marsh MW, Greenwood-Hickman MA, Schroeder BF (2015) Performance of digital screening mammography in a population-based cohort of black and white women. Cancer Causes Control: CCC 26(10):1495–1499CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
go back to reference Kemp Jacobsen K, O’Meara ES, Key D, I Buist, Kerlikowske K, Vejborg Buist et al (2015) Comparing sensitivity and specificity of screening mammography in the United States and Denmark. Int J Cancer. Journal international du cancer 137(9):2198–2207CrossRefPubMed Kemp Jacobsen K, O’Meara ES, Key D, I Buist, Kerlikowske K, Vejborg Buist et al (2015) Comparing sensitivity and specificity of screening mammography in the United States and Denmark. Int J Cancer. Journal international du cancer 137(9):2198–2207CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Lee CS, Bhargavan-Chatfield M, Burnside ES, Nagy P, Sickles EA (2016) The national mammography database: preliminary data. AJR Am J Roentgenol 206(4):883–890CrossRefPubMed Lee CS, Bhargavan-Chatfield M, Burnside ES, Nagy P, Sickles EA (2016) The national mammography database: preliminary data. AJR Am J Roentgenol 206(4):883–890CrossRefPubMed
31.
go back to reference Nelson HD, O’Meara ES, Kerlikowske K, Balch S, Miglioretti D (2016) Factors associated with rates of false-positive and false-negative results from digital mammography screening: an analysis of registry data. Ann Intern Med Nelson HD, O’Meara ES, Kerlikowske K, Balch S, Miglioretti D (2016) Factors associated with rates of false-positive and false-negative results from digital mammography screening: an analysis of registry data. Ann Intern Med
32.
go back to reference Eng A, Gallant Z, Shepherd J, McCormack V, Li J, Dowsett M et al (2014) Digital mammographic density and breast cancer risk: a case-control study of six alternative density assessment methods. Breast Cancer Res: BCR 16(5):439CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Eng A, Gallant Z, Shepherd J, McCormack V, Li J, Dowsett M et al (2014) Digital mammographic density and breast cancer risk: a case-control study of six alternative density assessment methods. Breast Cancer Res: BCR 16(5):439CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Volumetric breast density affects performance of digital screening mammography
Authors
Johanna O. P. Wanders
Katharina Holland
Wouter B. Veldhuis
Ritse M. Mann
Ruud M. Pijnappel
Petra H. M. Peeters
Carla H. van Gils
Nico Karssemeijer
Publication date
01-02-2017
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Issue 1/2017
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-016-4090-7

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 1/2017 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine