Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Journal of Medical Research
Published in: European Journal of Medical Research 1/2023

Open Access 01-12-2023 | Ultrasound | Research

Predicting mammographic density with linear ultrasound transducers

Authors: Annika Behrens, Peter A. Fasching, Eva Schwenke, Paul Gass, Lothar Häberle, Felix Heindl, Katharina Heusinger, Laura Lotz, Hannah Lubrich, Caroline Preuß, Michael O. Schneider, Rüdiger Schulz-Wendtland, Florian M. Stumpfe, Michael Uder, Marius Wunderle, Anna L. Zahn, Carolin C. Hack, Matthias W. Beckmann, Julius Emons

Published in: European Journal of Medical Research | Issue 1/2023

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

High mammographic density (MD) is a risk factor for the development of breast cancer (BC). Changes in MD are influenced by multiple factors such as age, BMI, number of full-term pregnancies and lactating periods. To learn more about MD, it is important to establish non-radiation-based, alternative examination methods to mammography such as ultrasound assessments.

Methods

We analyzed data from 168 patients who underwent standard-of-care mammography and performed additional ultrasound assessment of the breast using a high-frequency (12 MHz) linear probe of the VOLUSON® 730 Expert system (GE Medical Systems Kretztechnik GmbH & Co OHG, Austria). Gray level bins were calculated from ultrasound images to characterize mammographic density. Percentage mammographic density (PMD) was predicted by gray level bins using various regression models.

Results

Gray level bins and PMD correlated to a certain extent. Spearman’s ρ ranged from − 0.18 to 0.32. The random forest model turned out to be the most accurate prediction model (cross-validated R2, 0.255). Overall, ultrasound images from the VOLUSON® 730 Expert device in this study showed limited predictive power for PMD when correlated with the corresponding mammograms.

Conclusions

In our present work, no reliable prediction of PMD using ultrasound imaging could be observed. As previous studies showed a reasonable correlation, predictive power seems to be highly dependent on the device used. Identifying feasible non-radiation imaging methods of the breast and their predictive power remains an important topic and warrants further evaluation.
Trial registration 325-19 B (Ethics Committee of the medical faculty at Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany).
Literature
1.
Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ, Sun L, Stone J, Fishell E, et al. Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(3):227–36.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Boyd NF, Byng JW, Jong RA, Fishell EK, Little LE, Miller AB, et al. Quantitative classification of mammographic densities and breast cancer risk: results from the Canadian National Breast Screening Study. NCI J Natl Cancer Inst. 1995;87(9):670–5.
3.
McCormack VA, dos Santos SI. Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2006;15(6):1159–69.
4.
Heusinger K, Loehberg CR, Haeberle L, Jud SM, Klingsiek P, Hein A, et al. Mammographic density as a risk factor for breast cancer in a German case-control study. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2011;20(1):1–8.PubMed
5.
Vachon CM, van Gils CH, Sellers TA, Ghosh K, Pruthi S, Brandt KR, et al. Mammographic density, breast cancer risk and risk prediction. Breast Cancer Res. 2007;9(6):217.PubMedPubMedCentral
6.
Jud SM, Haberle L, Fasching PA, Heusinger K, Hack C, Faschingbauer F, et al. Correlates of mammographic density in B-mode ultrasound and real time elastography. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2012;21(4):343–9.PubMed
7.
Rauh C, Hack CC, Haberle L, Hein A, Engel A, Schrauder MG, et al. Percent mammographic density and dense area as risk factors for breast cancer. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2012;72(8):727–33.PubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Huober J, Schneeweiss A, Hartkopf AD, Muller V, Lux MP, Janni W, et al. Update breast cancer 2020 part 3-early breast cancer. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2020;80(11):1105–14.PubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Lokate M, Peeters PH, Peelen LM, Haars G, Veldhuis WB, van Gils CH. Mammographic density and breast cancer risk: the role of the fat surrounding the fibroglandular tissue. Breast Cancer Res. 2011;13(5):R103.PubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Haberle L, Fasching PA, Brehm B, Heusinger K, Jud SM, Loehberg CR, et al. Mammographic density is the main correlate of tumors detected on ultrasound but not on mammography. Int J Cancer. 2016;139(9):1967–74.PubMed
11.
Eriksson L, Czene K, Rosenberg LU, Tornberg S, Humphreys K, Hall P. Mammographic density and survival in interval breast cancers. Breast Cancer Res. 2013;15(3):R48.PubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Gierach GL, Ichikawa L, Kerlikowske K, Brinton LA, Farhat GN, Vacek PM, et al. Relationship between mammographic density and breast cancer death in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012;104(16):1218–27.PubMedPubMedCentral
13.
Heindl F, Fasching PA, Hein A, Hack CC, Heusinger K, Gass P, et al. Mammographic density and prognosis in primary breast cancer patients. Breast. 2021;59:51–7.PubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Burton A, Maskarinec G, Perez-Gomez B, Vachon C, Miao H, Lajous M, et al. Mammographic density and ageing: A collaborative pooled analysis of cross-sectional data from 22 countries worldwide. PLoS Med. 2017;14(6):e1002335.PubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Byrne C, Schairer C, Wolfe J, Parekh N, Salane M, Brinton LA, et al. Mammographic features and breast cancer risk: effects with time, age, and menopause status. JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst. 1995;87(21):1622–9.
16.
Boyd NF, Lockwood GA, Byng JW, Little LE, Yaffe MJ, Tritchler DL. The relationship of anthropometric measures to radiological features of the breast in premenopausal women. Br J Cancer. 1998;78(9):1233–8.PubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Brisson J, Morrison AS, Kopans DB, Sadowsky NL, Kalisher L, Twaddle JA, et al. Height and weight, mammographic features of breast tissue, and breast cancer risk. Am J Epidemiol. 1984;119(3):371–81.PubMed
18.
Gram IT, Bremnes Y, Ursin G, Maskarinec G, Bjurstam N, Lund E. Percentage density, Wolfe’s and Tabar’s mammographic patterns: agreement and association with risk factors for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 2005;7(5):R854–61.PubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Boyd NF, Martin LJ, Sun L, Guo H, Chiarelli A, Hislop G, et al. Body size, mammographic density, and breast cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2006;15(11):2086–92.
20.
Azam S, Lange T, Huynh S, Aro AR, von Euler-Chelpin M, Vejborg I, et al. Hormone replacement therapy, mammographic density, and breast cancer risk: a cohort study. Cancer Causes Control. 2018;29(6):495–505.PubMedPubMedCentral
21.
van Duijnhoven FJ, Peeters PH, Warren RM, Bingham SA, van Noord PA, Monninkhof EM, et al. Postmenopausal hormone therapy and changes in mammographic density. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(11):1323–8.PubMed
22.
McTiernan A, Martin CF, Peck JD, Aragaki AK, Chlebowski RT, Pisano ED, et al. Estrogen-plus-progestin use and mammographic density in postmenopausal women: Women’s Health Initiative randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97(18):1366–76.PubMed
23.
Lee E, Luo J, Su YC, Lewinger JP, Schumacher FR, Van Den Berg D, et al. Hormone metabolism pathway genes and mammographic density change after quitting estrogen and progestin combined hormone therapy in the California Teachers Study. Breast Cancer Res. 2014;16(6):477.PubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Greendale GA, Reboussin BA, Sie A, Singh HR, Olson LK, Gatewood O, et al. Effects of estrogen and estrogen-progestin on mammographic parenchymal density. Postmenopausal Estrogen/Progestin Interventions (PEPI) Investigators. Ann Intern Med. 1999;130(4 Pt 1):262–9.
25.
Engmann NJ, Scott CG, Jensen MR, Ma L, Brandt KR, Mahmoudzadeh AP, et al. Longitudinal changes in volumetric breast density with tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitors. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2017;26(6):930–7.
26.
Cuzick J, Warwick J, Pinney E, Warren RM, Duffy SW. Tamoxifen and breast density in women at increased risk of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96(8):621–8.PubMed
27.
Gram IT, Funkhouser E, Tabar L. Reproductive and menstrual factors in relation to mammographic parenchymal patterns among perimenopausal women. Br J Cancer. 1995;71(3):647–50.PubMedPubMedCentral
28.
Kaufman Z, Garstin WI, Hayes R, Michell MJ, Baum M. The mammographic parenchymal patterns of nulliparous women and women with a family history of breast cancer. Clin Radiol. 1991;43(6):385–8.PubMed
29.
Vachon CM, Kuni CC, Anderson K, Anderson VE, Sellers TA. Association of mammographically defined percent breast density with epidemiologic risk factors for breast cancer (United States). Cancer Causes Control. 2000;11(7):653–62.PubMed
30.
Loehberg CR, Heusinger K, Jud SM, Haeberle L, Hein A, Rauh C, et al. Assessment of mammographic density before and after first full-term pregnancy. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2010;19(6):405–12.PubMed
31.
Hack CC, Emons J, Jud SM, Heusinger K, Adler W, Gass P, et al. Association between mammographic density and pregnancies relative to age and BMI: a breast cancer case-only analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;166(3):701–8.PubMed
32.
Yaghjyan L, Colditz GA, Rosner B, Bertrand KA, Tamimi RM. Reproductive factors related to childbearing and mammographic breast density. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016;158(2):351–9.PubMedPubMedCentral
33.
Anon. Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. Breast cancer and breastfeeding: collaborative reanalysis of individual data from 47 epidemiological studies in 30 countries, including 50302 women with breast cancer and 96973 women without the disease. Lancet. 2002;360(9328):187–95.
34.
Morris GJ. Breastfeeding, parity, and reduction of breast cancer risk. Breast J. 2009;15(5):562–3.PubMed
35.
Heywang-Kobrunner SH, Hacker A, Sedlacek S. Advantages and Disadvantages of Mammography Screening. Breast Care. 2011;6(3):199–207.PubMedPubMedCentral
36.
Hubner J, Katalinic A, Waldmann A, Kraywinkel K. Long-term incidence and mortality trends for breast cancer in Germany. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2020;80(6):611–8.PubMedPubMedCentral
37.
Miglioretti DL, Lange J, van den Broek JJ, Lee CI, van Ravesteyn NT, Ritley D, et al. Radiation-induced breast cancer incidence and mortality from digital mammography screening: a modeling study. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164(4):205–14.PubMedPubMedCentral
38.
Khazen M, Warren RM, Boggis CR, Bryant EC, Reed S, Warsi I, et al. A pilot study of compositional analysis of the breast and estimation of breast mammographic density using three-dimensional T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2008;17(9):2268–74.
39.
Wei J, Chan HP, Helvie MA, Roubidoux MA, Sahiner B, Hadjiiski LM, et al. Correlation between mammographic density and volumetric fibroglandular tissue estimated on breast MR images. Med Phys. 2004;31(4):933–42.PubMed
40.
Tagliafico A, Bignotti B, Tagliafico G, Astengo D, Martino L, Airaldi S, et al. Breast density assessment using a 3T MRI system: comparison among different sequences. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(6):e99027.PubMedPubMedCentral
41.
Klifa C, Carballido-Gamio J, Wilmes L, Laprie A, Shepherd J, Gibbs J, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for secondary assessment of breast density in a high-risk cohort. Magn Reson Imaging. 2010;28(1):8–15.PubMed
42.
Nie K, Chen JH, Chan S, Chau MK, Yu HJ, Bahri S, et al. Development of a quantitative method for analysis of breast density based on three-dimensional breast MRI. Med Phys. 2008;35(12):5253–62.PubMedPubMedCentral
43.
Merkel D, Stahlheber H, Chupina V, Schneider C. Comparison of the quality of B-scan ultrasound in modern high-end devices. Zeitschrift für Gastroenterologie. 2018;56(12):1491–8.
44.
Beckmann MW, Brucker C, Hanf V, Rauh C, Bani MR, Knob S, et al. Quality assured health care in certified breast centers and improvement of the prognosis of breast cancer patients. Oncol Res Treat. 2011;34(7):362–7.
45.
Haberle L, Wagner F, Fasching PA, Jud SM, Heusinger K, Loehberg CR, et al. Characterizing mammographic images by using generic texture features. Breast Cancer Res. 2012;14(2):R59.PubMedPubMedCentral
46.
Manduca A, Carston MJ, Heine JJ, Scott CG, Pankratz VS, Brandt KR, et al. Texture features from mammographic images and risk of breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2009;18(3):837–45.
47.
Haberle L, Hack CC, Heusinger K, Wagner F, Jud SM, Uder M, et al. Using automated texture features to determine the probability for masking of a tumor on mammography, but not ultrasound. Eur J Med Res. 2017;22(1):30.PubMedPubMedCentral
48.
Heusinger K, Jud SM, Haberle L, Hack CC, Adamietz BR, Meier-Meitinger M, et al. Association of mammographic density with hormone receptors in invasive breast cancers: results from a case-only study. Int J Cancer. 2012;131(11):2643–9.PubMed
49.
Heusinger K, Jud SM, Haberle L, Hack CC, Fasching PA, Meier-Meitinger M, et al. Association of mammographic density with the proliferation marker Ki-67 in a cohort of patients with invasive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;135(3):885–92.PubMed
50.
Hack CC, Haberle L, Geisler K, Schulz-Wendtland R, Hartmann A, Fasching PA, et al. Mammographic density and prediction of nodal status in breast cancer patients. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2013;73(2):136–41.PubMedPubMedCentral
51.
Haberle L, Hein A, Rubner M, Schneider M, Ekici AB, Gass P, et al. Predicting triple-negative breast cancer subtype using multiple single nucleotide polymorphisms for breast cancer risk and several variable selection methods. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2017;77(6):667–78.PubMedPubMedCentral
52.
Moons KG, Altman DG, Reitsma JB, Ioannidis JP, Macaskill P, Steyerberg EW, et al. Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(1):W1-73.PubMed
53.
Fasching PA, Ekici AB, Adamietz BR, Wachter DL, Hein A, Bayer CM, et al. Breast cancer risk-genes, environment and clinics. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2011;71(12):1056–66.PubMedPubMedCentral
54.
Bayer CM, Bani MR, Schneider M, Dammer U, Raabe E, Haeberle L, et al. Assessment of breast volume changes during human pregnancy using a three-dimensional surface assessment technique in the prospective CGATE study. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2014;23(3):151–7.PubMed
55.
Heijblom M, Piras D, Brinkhuis M, van Hespen JC, van den Engh FM, van der Schaaf M, et al. Photoacoustic image patterns of breast carcinoma and comparisons with Magnetic Resonance Imaging and vascular stained histopathology. Sci Rep. 2015;5:11778.PubMedPubMedCentral
56.
McDonald ES, Schopp JG, Peacock S, DeMartini WB, Rahbar H, Lehman CD, et al. Diffusion-weighted MRI: association between patient characteristics and apparent diffusion coefficients of normal breast fibroglandular tissue at 3 T. Am J Roentgenol. 2014;202(5):W496-502.
57.
Glide C, Duric N, Littrup P. Novel approach to evaluating breast density utilizing ultrasound tomography. Med Phys. 2007;34(2):744–53.PubMed
58.
Glide-Hurst CK, Duric N, Littrup P. Volumetric breast density evaluation from ultrasound tomography images. Med Phys. 2008;35(9):3988–97.PubMed
Metadata
Title
Predicting mammographic density with linear ultrasound transducers
Authors
Annika Behrens
Peter A. Fasching
Eva Schwenke
Paul Gass
Lothar Häberle
Felix Heindl
Katharina Heusinger
Laura Lotz
Hannah Lubrich
Caroline Preuß
Michael O. Schneider
Rüdiger Schulz-Wendtland
Florian M. Stumpfe
Michael Uder
Marius Wunderle
Anna L. Zahn
Carolin C. Hack
Matthias W. Beckmann
Julius Emons
Publication date
01-12-2023
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
European Journal of Medical Research / Issue 1/2023
Electronic ISSN: 2047-783X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40001-023-01327-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2023

European Journal of Medical Research 1/2023 Go to the issue

Research

The global prevalence of primary central nervous system tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Review

COVID and depression among stratified population groups: a narrative review

Research

The effect of virtual reality technology on anti-fall ability and bone mineral density of the elderly with osteoporosis in an elderly care institution

Research

Impaired autophagy contributes to the aggravated deterioration of osteoarthritis articular cartilage by peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor α deficiency, associated with decreased ERK and Akt activation

Review

Interaction of Clostridioides difficile infection with frailty and cognition in the elderly: a narrative review

Review

Research trends and hotspots evolution of cardiac amyloidosis: a bibliometric analysis from 2000 to 2022