Breast density scales: the metric matters

Breast Glandular and Ductal Volume Changes during the Menstrual Cycle: A Study in 48 Breasts Using Ultralow-Frequency Transmitted Ultrasound Tomography/Volography

The aim of this study was to show for the first time that low-frequency 3D-transmitted ultrasound tomography (3D UT, volography) can differentiate breast tissue types using tissue properties, accurately measure glandular and ductal volumes in vivo, and measure variation over time. Data were collected for 400 QT breast scans on 24 women (ages 18-71), including four (4) postmenopausal subjects, 6-10 times over 2+ months of observation. The date of onset of menopause was noted, and the cases were further subdivided into three (3) classes: pre-, post-, and peri-menopausal. The ducts and glands were segmented using breast speed of sound, attenuation, and reflectivity images and followed over several menstrual cycles. The coefficient of variation (CoV) for glandular tissue in premenopausal women was significantly larger than for postmenopausal women, whereas this is not true for the ductal CoV. The glandular standard deviation (SD) is significantly larger in premenopausal women vs. postmenopausal women, whereas this is not true for ductal tissue. We conclude that ducts do not appreciably change over the menstrual cycle in either pre- or post-menopausal subjects, whereas glands change significantly over the cycle in pre-menopausal women, and 3D UT can differentiate ducts from glands in vivo.

Impact of breast density on diagnostic accuracy in digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: results from a European screening trial

BACKGROUND

The diagnostic accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and digital mammography (DM) in breast cancer screening may vary per breast density subgroup. The purpose of this study was to evaluate which women, based on automatically assessed breast density subgroups, have the greatest benefit of DBT compared with DM in the prospective Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The prospective European, Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (n = 14,848, Jan. 27, 2010-Feb. 13, 2015) compared one-view DBT and two-view DM, with consensus meeting before recall. Breast density was assessed in this secondary analysis with the automatic software Laboratory for Individualized Breast Radiodensity Assessment. DBT and DM's diagnostic accuracies were compared by breast density quintiles of breast percent density (PD) and absolute dense area (DA) with confidence intervals (CI) and McNemar's test. The association between breast density and cancer detection was analyzed with logistic regression, adjusted for ages < 55 and ≥ 55 years and previous screening participation.

RESULTS

In total, 14,730 women (median age: 58 years; inter-quartile range = 16) were included in the analysis. Sensitivity was higher and specificity lower for DBT compared with DM for all density subgroups. The highest breast PD quintile showed the largest difference in sensitivity and specificity at 81.1% (95% CI 65.8-90.5) versus 43.2% (95% CI 28.7-59.1), p < .001 and 95.5% (95% CI 94.7-96.2) versus 97.2% (95% CI 96.6-97.8), p < 0.001, respectively. Breast PD quintile was also positively associated with cancer detected via DBT at odds ratio 1.24 (95% CI 1.09-1.42, p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Women with the highest breast density had the greatest benefit from digital breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography with increased sensitivity at the cost of slightly lower specificity. These results may influence digital breast tomosynthesis's use in an individualized screening program stratified by, for instance, breast density.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Trial registration at https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov : NCT01091545, registered March 24, 2010.

An Exploratory Multi-reader, Multi-case Study Comparing Transmission Ultrasound to Mammography on Recall Rates and Detection Rates for Breast Cancer Lesions

BACKGROUND

Three-dimensional Quantitative Transmission (QT) ultrasound imaging is an emerging modality for improving the detection and diagnosis of breast cancer. QT ultrasound has high resolution and high contrast to noise ratio, making it effective in evaluating breast tissue. This study compares radiologists' performance of noncancer recall rates and lesion detection rates using QT Ultrasound versus full-field digital mammography (FFDM) in a cross section of female subjects.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) study, we examined retrospective data from two clinical trials conducted at five sites. All subjects received FFDM and QT scans within 90 days. Data were analyzed in a reader study with full factorial design involving 22 radiologists and 108 breast cases (42 normal, 39 pathology-confirmed benign, and 27 pathology-confirmed cancer cases). The main results used a random-reader random-case analysis adjusted for location bias performed after a primary predefined random-reader fixed-case analysis.

RESULTS

The readers' mean rate of detecting lesions of any type was 4% higher (p-value > 0.05) with QT imaging. The mean non-cancer recall rate improved significantly, showing a decrease of 16% with QT (p-value = 0.03), at the expense of a 2% decrease in the mean cancer recall rate (p-value >0.05) in comparison to FFDM. Combining performance on cancer and noncancer recall rates, the mean area under the receiver operator curve of confidence scores improved significantly by 10% with QT (p-value = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

This MRMC study indicates that QT improves non-cancer recall rates without substantially affecting cancer recall rates. The main limitation is the small number of cases from retrospective data. A larger prospective MRMC study is warranted for further assessment.

Quantitative assessment of breast density using transmission ultrasound tomography

Purpose

Breast density is important in the evaluation of breast cancer risk. At present, breast density is evaluated using two‐dimensional projections from mammography with or without tomosynthesis using either (a) subjective assessment or (b) a computer‐aided approach. The purpose of this work is twofold: (a) to establish an algorithm for quantitative assessment of breast density using quantitative three‐dimensional transmission ultrasound imaging; and (b) to determine how these quantitative assessments compare with both subjective and objective mammographic assessments of breast density.

Methods

We described and verified a threshold‐based segmentation algorithm to give a quantitative breast density (QBD) on ultrasound tomography images of phantoms of known geometric forms. We also used the algorithm and transmission ultrasound tomography to quantitatively determine breast density by separating fibroglandular tissue from fat and skin, based on imaged, quantitative tissue characteristics, and compared the quantitative tomography segmentation results with subjective and objective mammographic assessments.

Results

Quantitative breast density (QBD) measured in phantoms demonstrates high quantitative accuracy with respect to geometric volumes with average difference of less than 0.1% of the total phantom volumes. There is a strong correlation between QBD and both subjective mammographic assessments of Breast Imaging ‐ Reporting and Data System (BI‐RADS) breast composition categories and Volpara density scores — the Spearman correlation coefficients for the two comparisons were calculated to be 0.90 (95% CI: 0.71–0.96) and 0.96 (95% CI: 0.92–0.98), respectively.

Conclusions

The calculation of breast density using ultrasound tomography and the described segmentation algorithm is quantitatively accurate in phantoms and highly correlated with both subjective and Food and Drug Administration (FDA)‐cleared objective assessments of breast density.