Comparing Mammographic Density Assessed by Digital Breast Tomosynthesis or Digital Mammography: The Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium

Impact of BMI on Prevalence of Dense Breasts by Race and Ethnicity

BACKGROUND

Density notification laws require notifying women of dense breasts with dense breast prevalence varying by race/ethnicity. We evaluated whether differences in body mass index (BMI) account for differences in dense breasts prevalence by race/ethnicity.

METHODS

Prevalence of dense breasts (heterogeneously or extremely dense) according to Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System and obesity (BMI > 30 kg/m2) were estimated from 2,667,207 mammography examinations among 866,033 women in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) from January 2005 through April 2021. Prevalence ratios (PR) for dense breasts relative to overall prevalence by race/ethnicity were estimated by standardizing race/ethnicity prevalence in the BCSC to the 2020 U.S. population, and adjusting for age, menopausal status, and BMI using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Dense breasts were most prevalent among Asian women (66.0%) followed by non-Hispanic/Latina (NH) White (45.5%), Hispanic/Latina (45.3%), and NH Black (37.0%) women. Obesity was most prevalent in Black women (58.4%) followed by Hispanic/Latina (39.3%), NH White (30.6%), and Asian (8.5%) women. The adjusted prevalence of dense breasts was 19% higher [PR = 1.19; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.19-1.20] in Asian women, 8% higher (PR = 1.08; 95% CI, 1.07-1.08) in Black women, the same in Hispanic/Latina women (PR = 1.00; 95% CI, 0.99-1.01), and 4% lower (PR = 0.96; 95% CI, 0.96-0.97) in NH White women relative to the overall prevalence.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinically important differences in breast density prevalence are present across racial/ethnic groups after accounting for age, menopausal status, and BMI.

IMPACT

If breast density is the sole criterion used to notify women of dense breasts and discuss supplemental screening it may result in implementing inequitable screening strategies across racial/ethnic groups. See related In the Spotlight, p. 1479.

Beyond Breast Density: Risk Measures for Breast Cancer in Multiple Imaging Modalities

Breast density is an independent risk factor for breast cancer. In digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis, breast density is assessed visually using the four-category scale developed by the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (5th edition as of November 2022). Epidemiologically based risk models, such as the Tyrer-Cuzick model (version 8), demonstrate superior modeling performance when mammographic density is incorporated. Beyond just density, a separate mammographic measure of breast cancer risk is parenchymal textural complexity. With advancements in radiomics and deep learning, mammographic textural patterns can be assessed quantitatively and incorporated into risk models. Other supplemental screening modalities, such as breast US and MRI, offer independent risk measures complementary to those derived from mammography. Breast US allows the two components of fibroglandular tissue (stromal and glandular) to be visualized separately in a manner that is not possible with mammography. A higher glandular component at screening breast US is associated with higher risk. With MRI, a higher background parenchymal enhancement of the fibroglandular tissue has also emerged as an imaging marker for risk assessment. Imaging markers observed at mammography, US, and MRI are powerful tools in refining breast cancer risk prediction, beyond mammographic density alone.

Breast Density and Breast Cancer Screening with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: A TOSYMA Trial Subanalysis

Background Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) plus synthesized mammography (SM) reduces the diagnostic pitfalls of tissue superimposition, which is a limitation of digital mammography (DM). Purpose To compare the invasive breast cancer detection rate (iCDR) of DBT plus SM versus DM screening for different breast density categories. Materials and Methods An exploratory subanalysis of the TOmosynthesis plus SYnthesized MAmmography (TOSYMA) study, a randomized, controlled, multicenter, parallel-group trial recruited within the German mammography screening program from July 2018 to December 2020. Women aged 50-69 years were randomly assigned (1:1) to DBT plus SM or DM screening examination. Breast density categories A-D were visually assessed according to the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Atlas. Exploratory analyses were performed of the iCDR in both study arms and stratified by breast density, and odds ratios and 95% CIs were determined. Results A total of 49 762 women allocated to DBT plus SM and 49 796 allocated to DM (median age, 57 years [IQR, 53-62 years]) were included. In the DM arm, the iCDR was 3.6 per 1000 screening examinations in category A (almost entirely fatty) (16 of 4475 screenings), 4.3 in category B (102 of 23 534 screenings), 6.1 in category C (116 of 19 051 screenings), and 2.3 in category D (extremely dense breasts) (six of 2629 screenings). The iCDR in the DBT plus SM arm was 2.7 per 1000 screening examinations in category A (12 of 4439 screenings), 6.9 in category B (154 of 22 328 screenings), 8.3 in category C (156 of 18 772 screenings), and 8.1 in category D (32 of 3940 screenings). The odds ratio for DM versus DBT plus SM in category D was 3.8 (95% CI: 1.5, 11.1). The invasive cancers detected with DBT plus SM were most often grade 2 tumors; in category C, it was 58% (91 of 156 invasive cancers), and in category D, it was 47% (15 of 32 invasive cancers). Conclusion The TOmosynthesis plus SYnthesized MAmmography trial revealed higher invasive cancer detection rates with digital breast tomosynthesis plus synthesized mammography than digital mammography in dense breasts, relatively and absolutely most marked among women with extremely dense breasts. ClinicalTrials.gov registration no.: NCT03377036 © RSNA, 2022 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Lee and Moy in this issue.

Mammographic Breast Density: Current Assessment Methods, Clinical Implications, and Future Directions

Mammographic breast density is widely accepted as an independent risk factor for the development of breast cancer. In addition, because dense breast tissue may mask breast malignancies, breast density is inversely related to the sensitivity of screening mammography. Given the risks associated with breast density, as well as ongoing efforts to stratify individual risk and personalize breast cancer screening and prevention, numerous studies have sought to better understand the factors that impact breast density, and to develop and implement reproducible, quantitative methods to assess mammographic density. Breast density assessments have been incorporated into risk assessment models to improve risk stratification. Recently, novel techniques for analyzing mammographic parenchymal complexity, or texture, have been explored as potential means of refining mammographic tissue-based risk assessment beyond breast density.

Dedicated breast computed-tomography in women with a personal history of breast cancer: A proof-of-concept study

PURPOSE

To compare the subjective image quality assessment using B-CT and digital mammography in women with personal history of breast cancer (PHBC).

METHOD

In this retrospective study 32 patients with PHBC were included. Each patient had undergone a B-CT examination and a previous mammogram in a time interval of less than 18 months between the two examinations. Two radiologists evaluated the two examinations independently with regard to the presence of lesions, BI-RADS classification, level of confidence for the overall exam interpretation, scar evaluation and image quality including image degradation due to clip artifacts. Level of confidence and image quality were assessed using a 5-point Likert scale. A p-value of less than 0.01 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven operated and 27 non-operated breasts were included. Confidence for the overall interpretation with B-CT was equal or superior to mammography in 63 cases (98.4 %) for reader 1 and in 58 cases (90.6 %) for reader 2 (p <.001). Confidence for scar evaluation with B-CT was equal or superior to mammography in all cases for reader 1 and in 34 cases (91.9 %) for readers 2 (p <.001). One case with local recurrence in B-CT was identified by both readers and no false positive findings were reported. A moderate to high image degradation due to beam-hardening artifacts has been reported by both readers in 29.4 % of cases due to surgical clips in the B-CT volume.

CONCLUSIONS

B-CT in patients with PHBC provides high quality images that can be evaluated with confidence equal or superior to mammography.

Opinions on the Assessment of Breast Density Among Members of the Society of Breast Imaging

OBJECTIVE

Dense breast decreases the sensitivity and specificity of mammography and is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. We conducted a survey to assess the opinions of Society of Breast Imaging (SBI) members regarding density assessment.

METHODS

An online survey was sent to SBI members twice in September 2020. The survey included active members who were practicing radiologists, residents, and fellows. Mammograms from three patients were presented for density assessment based on routine clinical practice and BI-RADS fourth and fifth editions. Dense breasts were defined as heterogeneously or extremely dense. Frequencies were calculated for each survey response. Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to evaluate the correlation of density assessments by different definitions.

RESULTS

The survey response rate was 12.4% (357/2875). For density assessments, the Pearson correlation coefficients between routine clinical practice and BI-RADS fourth edition were 0.05, 0.43, and 0.12 for patients 1, 2, and 3, respectively; these increased to 0.65, 0.65, and 0.66 between routine clinical practice and BI-RADS fifth edition for patients 1, 2, and 3, respectively. For future density grading, 79.0% (282/357) of respondents thought it should reflect both potential for masking and overall dense tissue for risk assessment. Additionally, 47.1% (168/357) of respondents thought quantitative methods were of use.

CONCLUSION

Density assessment varied based on routine clinical practice and BI-RADS fourth and fifth editions. Most breast radiologists agreed that density assessment should capture both masking and overall density. Moreover, almost half of respondents believed computer or artificial intelligence-assisted quantitative methods may help refine density assessment.

Breast Density: Current Knowledge, Assessment Methods, and Clinical Implications

Breast density is an accepted independent risk factor for the future development of breast cancer, and greater breast density has the potential to mask malignancies on mammography, thus lowering the sensitivity of screening mammography. The risk associated with dense breast tissue has been shown to be modifiable with changes in breast density. Numerous studies have sought to identify factors that influence breast density, including age, genetic, racial/ethnic, prepubertal, adolescent, lifestyle, environmental, hormonal, and reproductive history factors. Qualitative, semiquantitative, and quantitative methods of breast density assessment have been developed, but to date there is no consensus assessment method or reference standard for breast density. Breast density has been incorporated into breast cancer risk models, and there is growing consciousness of the clinical implications of dense breast tissue in both the medical community and public arena. Efforts to improve breast cancer screening sensitivity for women with dense breasts have led to increased attention to supplemental screening methods in recent years, prompting the American College of Radiology to publish Appropriateness Criteria for supplemental screening based on breast density.

Association of Screening With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography With Risk of Interval Invasive and Advanced Breast Cancer

Importance

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) was developed with the expectation of improving cancer detection in women with dense breasts. Studies are needed to evaluate interval invasive and advanced breast cancer rates, intermediary outcomes related to breast cancer mortality, by breast density and breast cancer risk.

Objective

To evaluate whether DBT screening is associated with a lower likelihood of interval invasive cancer and advanced breast cancer compared with digital mammography by extent of breast density and breast cancer risk.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Cohort study of 504 427 women aged 40 to 79 years who underwent 1 003 900 screening digital mammography and 375 189 screening DBT examinations from 2011 through 2018 at 44 US Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) facilities with follow-up for cancer diagnoses through 2019 by linkage to state or regional cancer registries.

Exposures

Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) breast density; BCSC 5-year breast cancer risk.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Rates per 1000 examinations of interval invasive cancer within 12 months of screening mammography and advanced breast cancer (prognostic pathologic stage II or higher) within 12 months of screening mammography, both estimated with inverse probability weighting.

Results

Among 504 427 women in the study population, the median age at time of mammography was 58 years (IQR, 50-65 years). Interval invasive cancer rates per 1000 examinations were not significantly different for DBT vs digital mammography (overall, 0.57 vs 0.61, respectively; difference, -0.04; 95% CI, -0.14 to 0.06; P = .43) or among all the 836 250 examinations with BCSC 5-year risk less than 1.67% (low to average-risk) or all the 413 061 examinations with BCSC 5-year risk of 1.67% or higher (high risk) across breast density categories. Advanced cancer rates were not significantly different for DBT vs digital mammography among women at low to average risk or at high risk with almost entirely fatty, scattered fibroglandular densities, or heterogeneously dense breasts. Advanced cancer rates per 1000 examinations were significantly lower for DBT vs digital mammography for the 3.6% of women with extremely dense breasts and at high risk of breast cancer (13 291 examinations in the DBT group and 31 300 in the digital mammography group; 0.27 vs 0.80 per 1000 examinations; difference, -0.53; 95% CI, -0.97 to -0.10) but not for women at low to average risk (10 611 examinations in the DBT group and 37 796 in the digital mammography group; 0.54 vs 0.42 per 1000 examinations; difference, 0.12; 95% CI, -0.09 to 0.32).

Conclusions and Relevance

Screening with DBT vs digital mammography was not associated with a significant difference in risk of interval invasive cancer and was associated with a significantly lower risk of advanced breast cancer among the 3.6% of women with extremely dense breasts and at high risk of breast cancer. No significant difference was observed in the 96.4% of women with nondense breasts, heterogeneously dense breasts, or with extremely dense breasts not at high risk.