Dataset Information

Comparison of fully and semi-automated area-based methods for measuring mammographic density and predicting breast cancer risk.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Mammographic density is a strong risk factor for breast cancer but the lack of valid fully automated methods for quantifying it has precluded its use in clinical and screening settings. We compared the performance of a recently developed automated approach, based on the public domain ImageJ programme, to the well-established semi-automated Cumulus method.

Methods

We undertook a case-control study within the intervention arm of the Age Trial, in which ∼54,000 British women were offered annual mammography at ages 40-49 years. A total of 299 breast cancer cases diagnosed during follow-up and 422 matched (on screening centre, date of birth and dates of screenings) controls were included. Medio-lateral oblique (MLO) images taken closest to age 41 and at least one year before the index case's diagnosis were digitised for each participant. Cumulus readings were performed in the left MLO and ImageJ-based readings in both left and right MLOs. Conditional logistic regression was used to examine density-breast cancer associations.

Results

The association between density readings taken from one single MLO and breast cancer risk was weaker for the ImageJ-based method than for Cumulus (age-body mass index-adjusted odds ratio (OR) per one s.d. increase in percent density (95% CI): 1.52 (1.24-1.86) and 1.61 (1.33-1.94), respectively). The ImageJ-based density-cancer association strengthened when the mean of left-right MLO readings was used: OR=1.61 (1.31-1.98).

Conclusions

The mean of left-right MLO readings yielded by the ImageJ-based method was as strong a predictor of risk as Cumulus readings from a single MLO image. The ImageJ-based method, using the mean of two measurements, is a valid automated alternative to Cumulus for measuring density in analogue films.

SUBMITTER: Sovio U

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3974092 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background The associations of density measures from the publicly available Laboratory for Individualized Breast Radiodensity Assessment (LIBRA) software with breast cancer have primarily focused on estimates from the contralateral breast at the time of diagnosis. Purpose To evaluate LIBRA measures on mammograms obtained before breast cancer diagnosis and compare their performance to established density measures. Materials and Methods For this retrospective case-control study, full-field digital mammograms in for-processing (raw) and for-presentation (processed) formats were obtained (March 2008 to December 2011) in women who developed breast cancer an average of 2 years later and in age-matched control patients. LIBRA measures included absolute dense area and area percent density (PD) from both image formats. For comparison, dense area and PD were assessed by using the research software (Cumulus), and volumetric PD (VPD) and absolute dense volume were estimated with a commercially available software (Volpara). Density measures were compared by using Spearman correlation coefficients (r), and conditional logistic regression (odds ratios [ORs] and 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) was performed to examine the associations of density measures with breast cancer by adjusting for age and body mass index. Results Evaluated were 437 women diagnosed with breast cancer (median age, 62 years ± 17 [standard deviation]) and 1225 matched control patients (median age, 61 years ± 16). LIBRA PD showed strong correlations with Cumulus PD (r = 0.77-0.84) and Volpara VPD (r = 0.85-0.90) (P < .001 for both). For LIBRA, the strongest breast cancer association was observed for PD from processed images (OR, 1.3; 95% CI: 1.1, 1.5), although the PD association from raw images was not significantly different (OR, 1.2; 95% CI: 1.1, 1.4; P = .25). Slightly stronger breast cancer associations were seen for Cumulus PD (OR, 1.5; 95% CI: 1.3, 1.8; processed images; P = .01) and Volpara VPD (OR, 1.4; 95% CI: 1.2, 1.7; raw images; P = .004) compared with LIBRA measures. Conclusion Automated density measures provided by the Laboratory for Individualized Breast Radiodensity Assessment from raw and processed mammograms correlated with established area and volumetric density measures and showed comparable breast cancer associations. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Project description:BackgroundBreast density is strongly associated with breast cancer risk. Fully automated quantitative density assessment methods have recently been developed that could facilitate large-scale studies, although data on associations with long-term breast cancer risk are limited. We examined LIBRA assessments and breast cancer risk and compared results to prior assessments using Cumulus, an established computer-assisted method requiring manual thresholding.MethodsWe conducted a cohort study among 21,150 non-Hispanic white female participants of the Research Program in Genes, Environment and Health of Kaiser Permanente Northern California who were 40-74 years at enrollment, followed for up to 10 years, and had archived processed screening mammograms acquired on Hologic or General Electric full-field digital mammography (FFDM) machines and prior Cumulus density assessments available for analysis. Dense area (DA), non-dense area (NDA), and percent density (PD) were assessed using LIBRA software. Cox regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for breast cancer associated with DA, NDA and PD modeled continuously in standard deviation (SD) increments, adjusting for age, mammogram year, body mass index, parity, first-degree family history of breast cancer, and menopausal hormone use. We also examined differences by machine type and breast view.ResultsThe adjusted HRs for breast cancer associated with each SD increment of DA, NDA and PD were 1.36 (95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.57), 0.85 (0.77-0.93) and 1.44 (1.26-1.66) for LIBRA and 1.44 (1.33-1.55), 0.81 (0.74-0.89) and 1.54 (1.34-1.77) for Cumulus, respectively. LIBRA results were generally similar by machine type and breast view, although associations were strongest for Hologic machines and mediolateral oblique views. Results were also similar during the first 2 years, 2-5 years and 5-10 years after the baseline mammogram.ConclusionAssociations with breast cancer risk were generally similar for LIBRA and Cumulus density measures and were sustained for up to 10 years. These findings support the suitability of fully automated LIBRA assessments on processed FFDM images for large-scale research on breast density and cancer risk.

Project description:Background While digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is rapidly replacing digital mammography (DM) in breast cancer screening, the potential of DBT density measures for breast cancer risk assessment remains largely unexplored. Purpose To compare associations of breast density estimates from DBT and DM with breast cancer. Materials and Methods This retrospective case-control study used contralateral DM/DBT studies from women with unilateral breast cancer and age- and ethnicity-matched controls (September 19, 2011-January 6, 2015). Volumetric percent density (VPD%) was estimated from DBT using previously validated software. For comparison, the publicly available Laboratory for Individualized Breast Radiodensity Assessment software package, or LIBRA, was used to estimate area-based percent density (APD%) from raw and processed DM images. The commercial Quantra and Volpara software packages were applied to raw DM images to estimate VPD% with use of physics-based models. Density measures were compared by using Spearman correlation coefficients (r), and conditional logistic regression was performed to examine density associations (odds ratios [OR]) with breast cancer, adjusting for age and body mass index. Results A total of 132 women diagnosed with breast cancer (mean age ± standard deviation [SD], 60 years ± 11) and 528 controls (mean age, 60 years ± 11) were included. Moderate correlations between DBT and DM density measures (r = 0.32-0.75; all P < .001) were observed. Volumetric density estimates calculated from DBT (OR, 2.3 [95% CI: 1.6, 3.4] per SD for VPD%DBT) were more strongly associated with breast cancer than DM-derived density for both APD% (OR, 1.3 [95% CI: 0.9, 1.9] [P < .001] and 1.7 [95% CI: 1.2, 2.3] [P = .004] per SD for LIBRA raw and processed data, respectively) and VPD% (OR, 1.6 [95% CI: 1.1, 2.4] [P = .01] and 1.7 [95% CI: 1.2, 2.6] [P = .04] per SD for Volpara and Quantra, respectively). Conclusion The associations between quantitative breast density estimates and breast cancer risk are stronger for digital breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Yaffe in this issue.

Project description:Purpose: Mammographic characteristics are known to be correlated to breast cancer risk. Percent mammographic density (PMD), as assessed by computer-assisted methods, is an established risk factor for breast cancer. Along with this assessment the absolute dense area (DA) of the breast is reported as well. Aim of this study was to assess the predictive value of DA concerning breast cancer risk in addition to other risk factors and in addition to PMD. Methods: We conducted a case control study with hospital-based patients with a diagnosis of invasive breast cancer and healthy women as controls. A total of 561 patients and 376 controls with available mammographic density were included into this study. We describe the differences concerning the common risk factors BMI, parital status, use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and menopause between cases and controls and estimate the odds ratios for PMD and DA, adjusted for the mentioned risk factors. Furthermore we compare the prediction models with each other to find out whether the addition of DA improves the model. Results: Mammographic density and DA were highly correlated with each other. Both variables were as well correlated to the commonly known risk factors with an expected direction and strength, however PMD (??=?-0.56) was stronger correlated to BMI than DA (??=?-0.11). The group of women within the highest quartil of PMD had an OR of 2.12 (95?% CI: 1.25-3.62). This could not be seen for the fourth quartile concerning DA. However the assessment of breast cancer risk could be improved by including DA in a prediction model in addition to common risk factors and PMD. Conclusions: The inclusion of the parameter DA into a prediction model for breast cancer in addition to established risk factors and PMD could improve the breast cancer risk assessment. As DA is measured together with PMD in the process of computer-assisted assessment of PMD it might be considered to include it as one additional breast cancer risk factor that is obtained from breast imaging.