Carla H. van Gils and Nico Karssemeijer share last authorship.
To determine to what extent automatically measured volumetric mammographic density influences screening performance when using digital mammography (DM).
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.
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).
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.
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):1159–1169 CrossRef
Are You Dense Advocacy Website. [cited 2016 October 29]; Available from: http://www.areyoudenseadvocacy.org
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
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
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
Highnam R, Brady M, Yaffe MJ, Karssemeijer N, Harvey J (2010) Robust breast composition measurement—volpara (TM). Lect Notes Comput Sci 6136:342–349 CrossRef
Weigel S, Heindel W, Heidrich J, Hense HW, Heidinger O (2016) Digital mammography screening: sensitivity of the programme dependent on breast density. Eur Radiol
International Cancer Screening Network (ICSN) website. [cited 2015 November 1]; Available from: http://healthcaredelivery.cancer.gov/icsn/
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
- Volumetric breast density affects performance of digital screening mammography
Johanna O. P. Wanders
Wouter B. Veldhuis
Ritse M. Mann
Ruud M. Pijnappel
Petra H. M. Peeters
Carla H. van Gils
- Springer US
Neu im Fachgebiet Onkologie
Mail Icon II