Validation of a new fully automated software for 2D digital mammographic breast density evaluation in predicting breast cancer risk.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Giorgi Rossi P
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8494838 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7325699 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8608738 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMammographic 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsThe 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).ConclusionsThe 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.
| S-EPMC3974092 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) breast density categories assigned by interpreting radiologists often influence decisions surrounding supplemental breast cancer screening and risk assessment. The landscape of mammographic screening continuously evolves, and different mammographic screening modalities may result in different perception of density, reflected in different assignment of BI-RADS density categories. Purpose To investigate the effect of screening mammography modality on BI-RADS breast density assessments. Materials and Methods Data were retrospectively analyzed from 24 736 individual women (42.3% [10 455 of 24 736] white women, 57.7% [14 281 of 24 736] black women; mean age, 56.3 years; age range, 40.0-74.9 years) who underwent from one to seven mammographic screening examinations from September 2010 through February 2017 (60 766 examinations). Three screening modalities were used: digital mammography alone (8935 examinations); digital mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT; 30 779 examinations); and synthetic mammography with DBT (21 052 examinations). Random-effects logistic regression analysis was performed to estimate the likelihood of assignment to high versus low BI-RADS density category according to each modality, adjusted for ethnicity, age, body mass index (BMI), and radiologist. The interactions of modality with ethnicity and BMI on density categorization were also tested with the model. Results Women screened with DBT versus digital mammography alone had lower likelihood regarding categorization of high density breasts (digital mammography and DBT vs digital mammography: odds ratio, 0.69 [95% confidence interval: 0.61, 0.80], P < .001; synthetic mammography and DBT vs digital mammography: odds ratio, 0.43 [95% confidence interval: 0.37, 0.50], P < .001). Lower likelihood of high density was also observed at synthetic mammography and DBT compared with digital mammography and DBT (odds ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval: 0.56, 0.69; P < .001). There were interactions of modality with ethnicity (P = .007) and BMI (P = .003) on breast density assessment, with greater differences in density categorization according to modality observed for black women than for white women and groups with higher BMI. Conclusion Breast density categorization may vary by screening mammographic modality, and this effect appears to vary by ethnicity and body mass index. © RSNA, 2019 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Philpotts in this issue.
| S-EPMC6493215 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo assess a fully automated method for volumetric breast density (VBD) estimation in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and to compare the findings with those of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging.Materials and methodsBilateral DBT images, FFDM images, and sagittal breast MR images were retrospectively collected from 68 women who underwent breast cancer screening from October 2011 to September 2012 with institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant protocols. A fully automated computer algorithm was developed for quantitative estimation of VBD from DBT images. FFDM images were processed with U.S. Food and Drug Administration-cleared software, and the MR images were processed with a previously validated automated algorithm to obtain corresponding VBD estimates. Pearson correlation and analysis of variance with Tukey-Kramer post hoc correction were used to compare the multimodality VBD estimates.ResultsEstimates of VBD from DBT were significantly correlated with FFDM-based and MR imaging-based estimates with r = 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.74, 0.90) and r = 0.88 (95% CI: 0.82, 0.93), respectively (P < .001). The corresponding correlation between FFDM and MR imaging was r = 0.84 (95% CI: 0.76, 0.90). However, statistically significant differences after post hoc correction (α = 0.05) were found among VBD estimates from FFDM (mean ± standard deviation, 11.1% ± 7.0) relative to MR imaging (16.6% ± 11.2) and DBT (19.8% ± 16.2). Differences between VDB estimates from DBT and MR imaging were not significant (P = .26).ConclusionFully automated VBD estimates from DBT, FFDM, and MR imaging are strongly correlated but show statistically significant differences. Therefore, absolute differences in VBD between FFDM, DBT, and MR imaging should be considered in breast cancer risk assessment.
| S-EPMC4819897 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC10405373 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Percent mammographic density (PMD) is a strong breast cancer risk factor, however, other mammographic features, such as V, the standard deviation (SD) of pixel intensity, may be associated with risk. We assessed whether PMD, automated PMD (APD), and V, yielded independent associations with breast cancer risk. We included 1900 breast cancer cases and 3921 matched controls from the Nurses' Health Study (NHS) and the NHSII. Using digitized film mammograms, we estimated PMD using a computer-assisted thresholding technique. APD and V were determined using an automated computer algorithm. We used logistic regression to generate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Median time from mammogram to diagnosis was 4.1 years (interquartile range: 1.6-6.8 years). PMD (OR per SD:1.52, 95% CI: 1.42, 1.63), APD (OR per SD:1.32, 95% CI: 1.24, 1.41), and V (OR per SD:1.32, 95% CI: 1.24, 1.40) were positively associated with breast cancer risk. Associations for APD were attenuated but remained statistically significant after mutual adjustment for PMD or V. Women in the highest quartile of both APD and V (OR vs Q1/Q1: 2.49, 95% CI: 2.02, 3.06), or PMD and V (OR vs Q1/Q1: 3.57, 95% CI: 2.79, 4.58) had increased breast cancer risk. An automated method of PMD assessment is feasible and yields similar, but somewhat weaker, estimates to a manual measure. PMD, APD and V are each independently, positively associated with breast cancer risk. Women with dense breasts and greater texture variation are at the highest relative risk of breast cancer.
| S-EPMC8166859 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Mammographic density is a strong breast cancer risk factor and a major determinant of screening sensitivity. However, there is currently no validated estimation method for full-field digital mammography (FFDM). METHODS:The performance of three area-based approaches (BI-RADS, the semi-automated Cumulus, and the fully-automated ImageJ-based approach) and three fully-automated volumetric methods (Volpara, Quantra and single energy x-ray absorptiometry (SXA)) were assessed in 3168 FFDM images from 414 cases and 685 controls. Linear regression models were used to assess associations between breast cancer risk factors and density among controls, and logistic regression models to assess density-breast cancer risk associations, adjusting for age, body mass index (BMI) and reproductive variables. RESULTS:Quantra and the ImageJ-based approach failed to produce readings for 4% and 11% of the participants. All six density assessment methods showed that percent density (PD) was inversely associated with age, BMI, being parous and postmenopausal at mammography. PD was positively associated with breast cancer for all methods, but with the increase in risk per standard deviation increment in PD being highest for Volpara (1.83; 95% CI: 1.51 to 2.21) and Cumulus (1.58; 1.33 to 1.88) and lower for the ImageJ-based method (1.45; 1.21 to 1.74), Quantra (1.40; 1.19 to 1.66) and SXA (1.37; 1.16 to 1.63). Women in the top PD quintile (or BI-RADS 4) had 8.26 (4.28 to 15.96), 3.94 (2.26 to 6.86), 3.38 (2.00 to 5.72), 2.99 (1.76 to 5.09), 2.55 (1.46 to 4.43) and 2.96 (0.50 to 17.5) times the risk of those in the bottom one (or BI-RADS 1), respectively, for Volpara, Quantra, Cumulus, SXA, ImageJ-based method, and BI-RADS (P for trend <0.0001 for all). The ImageJ-based method had a slightly higher ability to discriminate between cases and controls (area under the curve (AUC) for PD?=?0.68, P?=?0.05), and Quantra slightly lower (AUC?=?0.63; P?=?0.06), than Cumulus (AUC?=?0.65). CONCLUSIONS:Fully-automated methods are valid alternatives to the labour-intensive "gold standard" Cumulus for quantifying density in FFDM. The choice of a particular method will depend on the aims and setting but the same approach will be required for longitudinal density assessments.
| S-EPMC4303120 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo test the hypothesis that American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) categories for breast density reported by radiologists are lower when digital mammography is used than those reported when film-screen (FS) mammography is used.Materials and methodsThis study was institutional review board approved and HIPAA compliant. Demographic data, risk factors, and BI-RADS breast density categories were collected from five mammography registries that were part of the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Active, passive, or waiver of consent was obtained for all participants. Women aged 40 years and older who underwent at least two screening mammographic examinations less than 36 months apart between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2009, were included. Women with prior breast cancer, augmentation, or use of agents known to affect density were excluded. The main sample included 89 639 women with both FS and digital mammograms. The comparison group included 259 046 women with two FS mammograms and 87 066 women with two digital mammograms. BI-RADS density was cross-tabulated according to the order in which the two types of mammogram were acquired and by the first versus second interpretation.ResultsRegardless of acquisition method, the percentage of women with a change in density from one reading to the next was similar. Breast density was lower in 19.8% of the women who underwent FS before digital mammography and 17.1% of those who underwent digital before FS mammography. Similarly, lower density classifications were reported on the basis of the second mammographic examination regardless of acquisition method (15.8%-19.8%). The percentage of agreement between density readings was similar regardless of mammographic types paired (67.3%-71.0%).ConclusionThe study results showed no difference in reported BI-RADS breast density categories according to acquisition method. Reported BI-RADS density categories may be useful in the development of breast cancer risk models in which FS, digital, or both acquisition methods are used.
| S-EPMC3579169 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:While Cumulus - a semi-automated method for measuring breast density - is utilised extensively in research, it is labour-intensive and unsuitable for screening programmes that require an efficient and valid measure on which to base screening recommendations. We develop an automated method to measure breast density (AutoDensity) and compare it to Cumulus in terms of association with breast cancer risk and breast cancer screening outcomes. METHODS:AutoDensity automatically identifies the breast area in the mammogram and classifies breast density in a similar way to Cumulus, through a fast, stand-alone Windows or Linux program. Our sample comprised 985 women with screen-detected cancers, 367 women with interval cancers and 4,975 controls (women who did not have cancer), sampled from first and subsequent screening rounds of a film mammography screening programme. To test the validity of AutoDensity, we compared the effect estimates using AutoDensity with those using Cumulus from logistic regression models that tested the association between breast density and breast cancer risk, risk of small and large screen-detected cancers and interval cancers, and screening programme sensitivity (the proportion of cancers that are screen-detected). As a secondary analysis, we report on correlation between AutoDensity and Cumulus measures. RESULTS:AutoDensity performed similarly to Cumulus in all associations tested. For example, using AutoDensity, the odds ratios for women in the highest decile of breast density compared to women in the lowest quintile for invasive breast cancer, interval cancers, large and small screen-detected cancers were 3.2 (95% CI 2.5 to 4.1), 4.7 (95% CI 3.0 to 7.4), 6.4 (95% CI 3.7 to 11.1) and 2.2 (95% CI 1.6 to 3.0) respectively. For Cumulus the corresponding odds ratios were: 2.4 (95% CI 1.9 to 3.1), 4.1 (95% CI 2.6 to 6.3), 6.6 (95% CI 3.7 to 11.7) and 1.3 (95% CI 0.9 to 1.8). Correlation between Cumulus and AutoDensity measures was 0.63 (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Based on the similarity of the effect estimates for AutoDensity and Cumulus inmodels of breast density and breast cancer risk and screening outcomes, we conclude that AutoDensity is a valid automated method for measuring breast density from digitised film mammograms.
| S-EPMC3978575 | biostudies-literature