Advertisement

Automated Volumetric Mammographic Breast Density Measurements May Underestimate Percent Breast Density for High-density Breasts

      Rationale and Objectives

      The purpose of this study was to evaluate discrepancy in breast composition measurements obtained from mammograms using two commercially available software methods for systematic trends in overestimation or underestimation compared to magnetic resonance-derived measurements.

      Materials and Methods

      An institutional review board-approved, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant retrospective study was performed to calculate percent breast density (PBD) by quantifying fibroglandular volume and total breast volume derived from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) segmentation and mammograms using two commercially available software programs (Volpara and Quantra). Consecutive screening MRI exams from a 6-month period with negative or benign findings were used. The most recent mammogram within 9 months was used to derive mean density values from “for processing” images at the per breast level. Bland-Altman statistical analyses were performed to determine the mean discrepancy and the limits of agreement.

      Results

      A total of 110 women with 220 breasts met the study criteria. Overall, PBD was not different between MRI (mean 10%, range 1%–41%) and Volpara (mean 10%, range 3%–29%); a small but significant difference was present in the discrepancy between MRI and Quantra (4.0%, 95% CI: 2.9 to 5.0, P < 0.001). Discrepancy was highest at higher breast densities, with Volpara slightly underestimating and Quantra slightly overestimating PBD compared to MRI. The mean discrepancy for both Volpara and Quantra for total breast volume was not significantly different from MRI (p = 0.89, 0.35, respectively). Volpara tended to underestimate, whereas Quantra tended to overestimate fibroglandular volume, with the highest discrepancy at higher breast volumes.

      Conclusions

      Both Volpara and Quantra tend to underestimate PBD, which is most pronounced at higher densities. PBD can be accurately measured using automated volumetric software programs, but values should not be used interchangeably between vendors.

      Key Words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Academic Radiology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Carney P.A.
        • Miglioretti D.L.
        • Yankaskas B.C.
        • et al.
        Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography.
        Ann Intern Med. 2003; 138: 168-175
        • Kerlikowske K.
        • Hubbard R.A.
        • Miglioretti D.L.
        • et al.
        Comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in community practice in the United States.
        Ann Intern Med. 2011; 155: 493-502
        • Byrne C.
        • Schairer C.
        • Wolfe J.
        • et al.
        Mammographic features and breast cancer risk: effects with time, age, and menopause status.
        J Natl Cancer Inst. 1995; 87: 1622-1629
        • Boyd N.F.
        • Lockwood G.A.
        • Byng J.W.
        • et al.
        Mammographic densities and breast cancer risk.
        Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1998; 7: 1133-1144
        • Harvey J.A.
        • Bovbjerg V.E.
        Quantitative assessment of mammographic breast density: relationship with breast cancer risk.
        Radiology. 2004; 230: 29-41
        • Boyd N.F.
        • Guo H.
        • Martin L.J.
        • et al.
        Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer.
        N Engl J Med. 2007; 356: 227-236
        • American College of Radiology
        Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS).
        4th ed. American College of Radiology, Reston, VA2003
        • D'Orsi C.J.
        • Sickles E.A.
        • Mendelson E.B.
        • et al.
        ACR BI-RADS® atlas, breast imaging reporting and data system.
        5th ed. American College of Radiology, Reston, Virginia2013
        • Harvey J.A.
        • Gard C.C.
        • Miglioretti D.L.
        • et al.
        Reported mammographic density: film-screen versus digital acquisition.
        Radiology. 2013; 266: 752-758
        • Nicholson B.T.
        • LoRusso A.P.
        • Smolkin M.
        • et al.
        Accuracy of assigned BI-RADS breast density category definitions.
        Acad Radiol. 2006; 13: 1143-1149
        • Ko S.Y.
        • Kim E.K.
        • Kim M.J.
        • et al.
        Mammographic density estimation with automated volumetric breast density measurement.
        Korean J Radiol. 2014; 15: 313-321
        • Irshad A.
        • Leddy R.
        • Ackerman S.
        • et al.
        Effects of changes in BI-RADS density assessment guidelines (fourth versus fifth edition) on breast density assessment: intra- and interreader agreements and density distribution.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016; 207: 1366-1371
        • Byng J.W.
        • Yaffe M.J.
        • Jong R.A.
        • et al.
        Analysis of mammographic density and breast cancer risk from digitized mammograms.
        Radiographics. 1998; 18: 1587-1598
        • Alonzo-Proulx O.
        • Packard N.
        • Boone J.M.
        • et al.
        Validation of a method for measuring the volumetric breast density from digital mammograms.
        Phys Med Biol. 2010; 55: 3027-3044
        • Alonzo-Proulx O.
        • Jong R.A.
        • Yaffe M.J.
        Volumetric breast density characteristics as determined from digital mammograms.
        Phys Med Biol. 2012; 57: 7443-7457
        • Alonzo-Proulx O.
        • Mawdsley G.E.
        • Patrie J.T.
        • et al.
        Reliability of automated breast density measurements.
        Radiology. 2015; 275: 366-376
        • Eng A.
        • Gallant Z.
        • Shepherd J.
        • et al.
        Digital mammographic density and breast cancer risk: a case-control study of six alternative density assessment methods.
        Breast Cancer Res. 2014; 16: 439
        • Brandt K.R.
        • Scott C.G.
        • Ma L.
        • et al.
        Comparison of clinical and automated breast density measurements: implications for risk prediction and supplemental screening.
        Radiology. 2016; 279: 710-719
        • D'Orsi C.J.
        • Sickles E.A.
        To seek perfection or not? That is the question.
        Radiology. 2012; 265: 9-11
        • Kopans D.B.
        Basic physics and doubts about relationship between mammographically determined tissue density and breast cancer risk1.
        Radiology. 2008; 246: 348-353
        • Lee N.A.
        • Rusinek H.
        • Weinreb J.
        • et al.
        Fatty and fibroglandular tissue volumes in the breasts of women 20–83 years old: comparison of X-ray mammography and computer-assisted MR imaging.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997; 168: 501-506
        • Gubern-Merida A.
        • Kallenberg M.
        • Platel B.
        • et al.
        Volumetric breast density estimation from full-field digital mammograms: a validation study.
        PLoS ONE. 2014; 9 (e85952)
        • Wang J.
        • Azziz A.
        • Fan B.
        • et al.
        Agreement of mammographic measures of volumetric breast density to MRI.
        PLoS ONE. 2013; 8 (e81653)
        • van Engeland S.
        • Snoeren P.R.
        • Huisman H.
        • et al.
        Volumetric breast density estimation from full-field digital mammograms.
        IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2006; 25: 273-282
        • Wei J.
        • Chan H.P.
        • Helvie M.A.
        • et al.
        Correlation between mammographic density and volumetric fibroglandular tissue estimated on breast MR images.
        Med Phys. 2004; 31: 933-942
        • Oliver A.
        • Llado X.
        • Perez E.
        • et al.
        A statistical approach for breast density segmentation.
        J Digit Imaging. 2010; 23: 527-537
        • Gubern-Merida A.
        • Kallenberg M.
        • Mann R.M.
        • et al.
        Breast segmentation and density estimation in breast MRI: a fully automatic framework.
        IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2015; 19: 349-357
        • Tustison N.J.
        • Avants B.B.
        • Cook P.A.
        • et al.
        N4ITK: improved N3 bias correction.
        IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2010; 29: 1310-1320
        • Avants B.B.
        • Tustison N.J.
        • Wu J.
        • et al.
        An open source multivariate framework for n-tissue segmentation with evaluation on public data.
        Neuroinformatics. 2011; 9: 381-400
        • Yushkevich P.A.
        • Piven J.
        • Hazlett H.C.
        • et al.
        User-guided 3D active contour segmentation of anatomical structures: significantly improved efficiency and reliability.
        Neuroimage. 2006; 31: 1116-1128
        • Hartman K.
        • Highnam R.
        • Warren R.
        • et al.
        Volumetric assessment of breast tissue composition from FFDM images.
        Springer, New York2008: 33-39
        • Aitken Z.
        • McCormack V.A.
        • Highnam R.P.
        • et al.
        Screen-film mammographic density and breast cancer risk: a comparison of the volumetric standard mammogram form and the interactive threshold measurement methods.
        Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010; 19: 418-428
        • Yaffe M.
        Mammographic density. Measurement of mammographic density.
        Breast Cancer Res. 2008; 10: 209
        • Bland J.M.
        • Altman D.G.
        Measuring agreement in method comparison studies.
        Stat Methods Med Res. 1999; 8: 135-160
        • Zou G.Y.
        Confidence interval estimation for the Bland-Altman limits of agreement with multiple observations per individual.
        Stat Methods Med Res. 2013; 22: 630-642
        • Lehmann E.
        • Casella G.
        Theory of point estimation.
        2nd ed. Springer, New York1998
        • Fleiss J.
        • Shrout P.
        Approximate interval estimation for a certain intraclass correlation coefficient.
        Psychometrika. 1978; 43: 259-262
        • Are You Dense Advocacy
        Are You Dense Advocacy.
        (Available at) (Accessed April 1, 2017; 04/21)

      CHORUS Manuscript

      View Open Manuscript