Comparison of breast consistency at palpation with breast density at mammography

Imaging the dense breast

The sensitivity of mammography reduces as breast density increases, which impacts breast screening and locoregional staging in breast cancer. Supplementary imaging with other modalities can offer improved cancer detection, but this often comes at the cost of more false positives. Magnetic resonance imaging and contrast-enhanced mammography, which assess tumour enhancement following contrast administration, are more sensitive than digital breast tomosynthesis and ultrasound, which predominantly rely on the assessment of tumour morphology.

Perception of Breast Density Information Among Women in Miami, FL: a Qualitative Study

The US Food and Drug Administration has proposed requiring that all women undergoing mammography receive written information about their breast density. Past research suggests many women may misperceive the meaning of breast density. Additionally, women with dense breasts may not understand the risks and benefits of pursuing additional imaging studies. The goal of this study was to explore women's beliefs about breast density and their preferences for how this information is conveyed. Women with increased breast density detected on mammography at a university-based breast imaging center in South Florida were recruited for a series of focus groups. Twenty-five women participated, ranging in age from 42 to 65 years. Nine women (36%) self-identified as Hispanic/Latina, eight (32%) as Black, four (16%) as White, three (12%) as Asian, and one as "other." Four focus groups were conducted in English and one in Spanish by professional moderators using a semi-structured format. A constant comparative method was used to identify common themes using a general inductive approach. Areas explored included understanding of the term breast density; personal reaction to being informed of dense breasts; questions about breast density; understanding of supplemental screening; and preferences for how to convey breast density information. Subthemes identified included a misperception that breast density is palpable; a feeling of fear on learning of increased breast density results; a concern about what causes increased breast density and whether it can be reversed; a desire to proceed with supplemental ultrasound imaging; and a preference for simple messages explaining the concept of breast density in multiple formats including video. Participants voiced the incorrect belief that caffeine intake could increase breast density and stated that they wanted to know specific details about their personal results. There is a need for better tools to communicate breast density in a way that allays anxiety while enabling women to make fully informed decisions about their breast health. Clinicians and cancer educators should be aware of misperceptions women may have about breast density. Policymakers should keep in mind potential public confusion about this complex topic when crafting density notification rules.

Breast cancer screening in the era of density notification legislation: summary of 2014 Massachusetts experience and suggestion of an evidence-based management algorithm by multi-disciplinary expert panel

Stemming from breast density notification legislation in Massachusetts effective 2015, we sought to develop a collaborative evidence-based approach to density notification that could be used by practitioners across the state. Our goal was to develop an evidence-based consensus management algorithm to help patients and health care providers follow best practices to implement a coordinated, evidence-based, cost-effective, sustainable practice and to standardize care in recommendations for supplemental screening. We formed the Massachusetts Breast Risk Education and Assessment Task Force (MA-BREAST) a multi-institutional, multi-disciplinary panel of expert radiologists, surgeons, primary care physicians, and oncologists to develop a collaborative approach to density notification legislation. Using evidence-based data from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, the Cochrane review, National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, American Cancer Society recommendations, and American College of Radiology appropriateness criteria, the group collaboratively developed an evidence-based best-practices algorithm. The expert consensus algorithm uses breast density as one element in the risk stratification to determine the need for supplemental screening. Women with dense breasts and otherwise low risk (<15% lifetime risk), do not routinely require supplemental screening per the expert consensus. Women of high risk (>20% lifetime) should consider supplemental screening MRI in addition to routine mammography regardless of breast density. We report the development of the multi-disciplinary collaborative approach to density notification. We propose a risk stratification algorithm to assess personal level of risk to determine the need for supplemental screening for an individual woman.

Imperfect correlation of mammographic and clinical breast tissue density

BACKGROUND

Clinicians determine degree of mammographic density based on tissue firmness on breast examination. The study aimed to compare breast density in mammography and clinical breast examination.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Six-hundred sixty three women 40 years of age or older were studied. The breast exam density was graded from 1 to 4 by two expert surgeons and the mammographic parenchymal density by two expert radiologists. Then for practical reasons, grades 1 and 2 were considered as low-density and grades 3 and 4 as high-density.

RESULTS

High and low densities were detected in 84.5% and 15.5% of clinical breast examinations and 59.7% and 40.3% of mammographies, respectively. The statistical analysis showed a significant difference between the breast tissue densities in breast examination with those in mammography.

CONCLUSIONS

A clinically dense breast does not necessarily imply a dense mammographic picture.