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

Concordant and discordant breast density patterns by different approaches for assessing breast density and breast cancer risk

PURPOSE

To examine the discrepancy in breast density assessments by radiologists, LIBRA software, and AI algorithm and their association with breast cancer risk.

METHODS

Among 74,610 Korean women aged ≥ 34 years, who underwent screening mammography, density estimates obtained from both LIBRA and the AI algorithm were compared to radiologists using BI-RADS density categories (A-D, designating C and D as dense breasts). The breast cancer risks were compared according to concordant or discordant dense breasts identified by radiologists, LIBRA, and AI. Cox-proportional hazards models were used to determine adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) [95% confidence intervals (CIs)].

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 9.9 years, 479 breast cancer cases developed. Compared to the reference non-dense breast group, the aHRs (95% CIs) for breast cancer were 2.37 (1.68-3.36) for radiologist-classified dense breasts, 1.30 (1.05-1.62) for LIBRA, and 2.55 (1.84-3.56) for AI. For different combinations of breast density assessment, aHRs (95% CI) for breast cancer were 2.40 (1.69-3.41) for radiologist-dense/LIBRA-non-dense, 11.99 (1.64-87.62) for radiologist-non-dense/LIBRA-dense, and 2.99 (1.99-4.50) for both dense breasts, compared to concordant non-dense breasts. Similar trends were observed with radiologists/AI classification: the aHRs (95% CI) were 1.79 (1.02-3.12) for radiologist-dense/AI-non-dense, 2.43 (1.24-4.78) for radiologist-non-dense/AI-dense, and 3.23 (2.15-4.86) for both dense breasts.

CONCLUSION

The risk of breast cancer was highest in concordant dense breasts. Discordant dense breast cases also had a significantly higher risk of breast cancer, especially when identified as dense by either AI or LIBRA, but not radiologists, compared to concordant non-dense breast cases.

Hybrid Feature Mammogram Analysis: Detecting and Localizing Microcalcifications Combining Gabor, Prewitt, GLCM Features, and Top Hat Filtering Enhanced with CNN Architecture

Breast cancer is a prevalent malignancy characterized by the uncontrolled growth of glandular epithelial cells, which can metastasize through the blood and lymphatic systems. Microcalcifications, small calcium deposits within breast tissue, are critical markers for early detection of breast cancer, especially in non-palpable carcinomas. These microcalcifications, appearing as small white spots on mammograms, are challenging to identify due to potential confusion with other tissues. This study hypothesizes that a hybrid feature extraction approach combined with Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) can significantly enhance the detection and localization of microcalcifications in mammograms. The proposed algorithm employs Gabor, Prewitt, and Gray Level Co-occurrence Matrix (GLCM) kernels for feature extraction. These features are input to a CNN architecture designed with maxpooling layers, Rectified Linear Unit (ReLU) activation functions, and a sigmoid response for binary classification. Additionally, the Top Hat filter is used for precise localization of microcalcifications. The preprocessing stage includes enhancing contrast using the Volume of Interest Look-Up Table (VOI LUT) technique and segmenting regions of interest. The CNN architecture comprises three convolutional layers, three ReLU layers, and three maxpooling layers. The training was conducted using a balanced dataset of digital mammograms, with the Adam optimizer and binary cross-entropy loss function. Our method achieved an accuracy of 89.56%, a sensitivity of 82.14%, and a specificity of 91.47%, outperforming related works, which typically report accuracies around 85-87% and sensitivities between 76 and 81%. These results underscore the potential of combining traditional feature extraction techniques with deep learning models to improve the detection and localization of microcalcifications. This system may serve as an auxiliary tool for radiologists, enhancing early detection capabilities and potentially reducing diagnostic errors in mass screening programs.

Breast Density: Where Are We Now?

Breast density refers to the amount of fibroglandular tissue relative to fat on mammography and is determined either qualitatively through visual assessment or quantitatively. It is a heritable and dynamic trait associated with age, race/ethnicity, body mass index, and hormonal factors. Increased breast density has important clinical implications including the potential to mask malignancy and as an independent risk factor for the development of breast cancer. Breast density has been incorporated into breast cancer risk models. Given the impact of dense breasts on the interpretation of mammography, supplemental screening may be indicated.

Breast Cancer in Dense Breasts: Detection Challenges and Supplemental Screening Opportunities

Dense breast tissue at mammography is associated with higher breast cancer incidence and mortality rates, which have prompted new considerations for breast cancer screening in women with dense breasts. The authors review the definition and classification of breast density, density assessment methods, breast cancer risk, current legislation, and future efforts and summarize trials and key studies that have affected the existing guidelines for supplemental screening. Cases of breast cancer in dense breasts are presented, highlighting a variety of modalities and specific imaging findings that can aid in cancer detection and staging. Understanding the current state of breast cancer screening in patients with dense breasts and its challenges is important to shape future considerations for care. Shifting the paradigm of breast cancer detection toward early diagnosis for women with dense breasts may be the answer to reducing the number of deaths from this common disease. ©RSNA, 2023 Online supplemental material is available for this article. Quiz questions for this article are available through the Online Learning Center. See the invited commentary by Yeh in this issue.

Analytic Hierarchy Process Analysis of Patient Preferences for Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Versus MRI as Supplemental Screening Options for Breast Cancer

OBJECTIVE

To guide implementation of supplemental breast screening by assessing patient preferences for contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) versus MRI using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) methodology.

METHODS

In an institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant protocol, from March 23 to June 3, 2022, we contacted 579 women who had both CEM screening and MRI. Women were e-mailed an invitation to complete an online survey developed using an AHP-based model to elicit preferences for CEM or MRI. Methods for categorical data analysis were used to evaluate factors affecting preferences, under the Bonferroni correction for multiplicity.

RESULTS

Complete responses were received from 222 (38.3%) women; the 189 women with a personal history of breast cancer had a mean age 61.8 years, and the 34 women without a personal history of breast cancer had a mean age of 53.6 years. Of 222 respondents, 157 (70.7%, confidence interval [CI]: 64.7-76.7) were determined to prefer CEM to MRI. Breast positioning was the most important criterion for 74 of 222 (33.3%) respondents, with claustrophobia, intravenous line placement, and overall stress most important for 38, 37, and 39 women (17.1%, 16.7%, and 17.6%), respectively, and noise level, contrast injection, and indifference being emphasized least frequently (by 10 [4.5%], 11 [5.0%], and 13 [5.9%] women, respectively). CEM preference was most prevalent (MRI least prevalent) for respondents emphasizing claustrophobia (37 of 38 [97%], CI: 86.2-99.9); CEM preference was least prevalent (MRI most prevalent) for respondents emphasizing breast positioning (40 of 74 [54%], CI: 42.1-65.7).

CONCLUSIONS

AHP-based modeling reveals strong patient preferences for CEM over MRI, with claustrophobia favoring preference for CEM and breast positioning relatively favoring preference for MRI. Our results should help guide implementation of screening CEM and MRI.

International Interobserver Variability of Breast Density Assessment

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to determine variability in visually assessed mammographic breast density categorization among radiologists practicing in Indonesia, the Netherlands, South Africa, and the United States.

METHODS

Two hundred consecutive 2-D full-field digital screening mammograms obtained from September to December 2017 were selected and retrospectively reviewed from four global locations, for a total of 800 mammograms. Three breast radiologists in each location (team) provided consensus density assessments of all 800 mammograms using BI-RADS® density categorization. Interreader agreement was compared using Gwet's AC2 with quadratic weighting across all four density categories and Gwet's AC1 for binary comparison of combined not dense versus dense categories. Variability of distribution among teams was calculated using the Stuart-Maxwell test of marginal homogeneity across all four categories and using the McNemar test for not dense versus dense categories. To compare readers from a particular country on their own 200 mammograms versus the other three teams, density distribution was calculated using conditional logistic regression.

RESULTS

For all 800 mammograms, interreader weighted agreement for distribution among four density categories was 0.86 (Gwet's AC2 with quadratic weighting; 95% confidence interval, 0.85-0.88), and for not dense versus dense categories, it was 0.66 (Gwet's AC1; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.70). Density distribution across four density categories was significantly different when teams were compared with one another and one team versus the other three teams combined (P < .001). Overall, all readers placed the largest number of mammograms in the scattered and heterogeneous categories.

CONCLUSIONS

Although reader teams from four different global locations had almost perfect interreader agreement in BI-RADS density categorization, variability in density distribution across four categories remained statistically significant.

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.