METHODS: 3317 raw digital mammograms were processed with Volpara(®) (Matakina Technology Ltd, Wellington, New Zealand) to obtain fibroglandular tissue volume (FGV), breast volume (BV) and VBD. Errors in parameters including CBT, kVp, filter thickness and mAs were simulated by varying them in the Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) tags of the images up to ±10% of the original values. Errors in detector gain and offset were simulated by varying them in the Volpara configuration file up to ±10% from their default values. For image noise, Gaussian noise was generated and introduced into the original images.
RESULTS: Errors in filter thickness, mAs, detector gain and offset had limited effects on FGV, BV and VBD. Significant effects in VBD were observed when CBT, kVp, detector offset and image noise were varied (p
METHODS AND FINDINGS: We examined cross-sectional differences in MD by age and menopausal status in over 11,000 breast-cancer-free women aged 35-85 years, from 40 ethnicity- and location-specific population groups across 22 countries in the International Consortium on Mammographic Density (ICMD). MD was read centrally using a quantitative method (Cumulus) and its square-root metrics were analysed using meta-analysis of group-level estimates and linear regression models of pooled data, adjusted for body mass index, reproductive factors, mammogram view, image type, and reader. In all, 4,534 women were premenopausal, and 6,481 postmenopausal, at the time of mammography. A large age-adjusted difference in percent MD (PD) between post- and premenopausal women was apparent (-0.46 cm [95% CI: -0.53, -0.39]) and appeared greater in women with lower breast cancer risk profiles; variation across population groups due to heterogeneity (I2) was 16.5%. Among premenopausal women, the √PD difference per 10-year increase in age was -0.24 cm (95% CI: -0.34, -0.14; I2 = 30%), reflecting a compositional change (lower dense area and higher non-dense area, with no difference in breast area). In postmenopausal women, the corresponding difference in √PD (-0.38 cm [95% CI: -0.44, -0.33]; I2 = 30%) was additionally driven by increasing breast area. The study is limited by different mammography systems and its cross-sectional rather than longitudinal nature.
CONCLUSIONS: Declines in MD with increasing age are present premenopausally, continue postmenopausally, and are most pronounced over the menopausal transition. These effects were highly consistent across diverse groups of women worldwide, suggesting that they result from an intrinsic biological, likely hormonal, mechanism common to women. If cumulative breast density is a key determinant of breast cancer risk, younger ages may be the more critical periods for lifestyle modifications aimed at breast density and breast cancer risk reduction.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The measurement challenge has been established as an international resource to offer a common set of anonymised mammogram images for measurement and analysis. To date, full field digital mammogram images and core data from 1650 cases and 1929 controls from five countries have been collated. The measurement challenge is an ongoing collaboration and we are continuing to expand the resource to include additional image sets across different populations (from contributors) and to compare additional measurement methods (by challengers). The intended use of the measurement challenge resource is for refinement and validation of new and existing mammographic measurement methods. The measurement challenge resource provides a standardised dataset of mammographic images and core data that enables investigators to directly compare methods of measuring mammographic density or other mammographic features in case/control sets of both raw and processed images, for the purposes of the comparing their predictions of breast cancer risk.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Challengers and contributors are required to enter a Research Collaboration Agreement with the University of Melbourne prior to participation in the measurement challenge. The Challenge database of collated data and images are stored in a secure data repository at the University of Melbourne. Ethics approval for the measurement challenge is held at University of Melbourne (HREC ID 0931343.3).
METHODS: Volumetric mammographic density was compared for 1501 Malaysian and 4501 Swedish healthy women, matched on age and body mass index. We used multivariable log-linear regression to determine the risk factors associated with mammographic density and mediation analysis to identify factors that account for differences in mammographic density between the two cohorts.
RESULTS: Compared to Caucasian women, percent density was 2.0% higher among Asian women (p breast cancer may be accounted for by height, weight, and parity. Given that pre-menopausal Asian and Caucasian women have similar population risk to breast cancer but different dense volume, development of more appropriate biomarkers of risk in pre-menopausal women is required.
PURPOSE: To determine if density of breast is an independent risk factor which will contribute to development of breast cancer.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective cohort study is carried out in two hospitals targeting adult female patients who presented to the Breast Clinic with symptoms suspicious of breast cancer. Participants recruited were investigated for breast cancer based on their symptoms. Breast density assessed from mammogram was correlated with tissue biopsy results and final diagnosis of benign or malignant breast disease.
RESULTS: Participants with dense breasts showed 29% increased risk of breast cancer when compared to those with almost entirely fatty breasts (odds ratio [OR] 1.29, 95% CI 0.38-4.44, P = .683). Among the postmenopausal women, those with dense breasts were 3.1 times more likely to develop breast cancer compared with those with fatty breasts (OR 3.125, 95% CI 0.72-13.64, P = .13). Moreover, the chance of developing breast cancer increases with age (OR 1.046, 95% CI 1.003-1.090, P breast decreases with increasing age (P breast density whether in the whole sample size, premenopausal, or postmenopausal group was consistently high.
CONCLUSION: Although results were not statistically significant, important association between breast density and risk of breast cancer cannot be ruled out. The study is limited by a small sample size and subjective assessment of breast density. More studies are required to reconcile the differences between studies of contrasting evidence.
METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of 2,377 Malaysian women aged 40-74 years. Physical activity information was obtained at screening mammogram and mammographic density was measured from mammograms by the area-based STRATUS method (n = 1,522) and the volumetric Volpara™ (n = 1,200) method. Linear regression analyses were performed to evaluate the association between physical activity and mammographic density, adjusting for potential confounders.
RESULTS: We observed that recent physical activity was associated with area-based mammographic density measures among postmenopausal women, but not premenopausal women. In the fully adjusted model, postmenopausal women with the highest level of recent physical activity had 8.0 cm2 [95% confidence interval: 1.3, 14.3 cm2] lower non-dense area and 3.1% [0.1, 6.3%] higher area-based percent density, compared to women with the lowest level of recent physical activity. Physical activity was not associated to volumetric mammographic density.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the beneficial effects of physical activity on breast cancer risk may not be measurable through mammographic density. Future research is needed to identify appropriate biomarkers to assess the effect of physical activity on breast cancer risk.
METHODS: We obtained 1294 pairs of images saved in both raw and processed formats from Hologic and General Electric (GE) direct digital systems and a Fuji computed radiography (CR) system, and 128 screen-film and processed CR-digital pairs from consecutive screening rounds. Four readers performed Cumulus-based MD measurements (n = 3441), with each image pair read by the same reader. Multi-level models of square-root percent MD were fitted, with a random intercept for woman, to estimate processed-raw MD differences.
RESULTS: Breast area did not differ in processed images compared with that in raw images, but the percent MD was higher, due to a larger dense area (median 28.5 and 25.4 cm2 respectively, mean √dense area difference 0.44 cm (95% CI: 0.36, 0.52)). This difference in √dense area was significant for direct digital systems (Hologic 0.50 cm (95% CI: 0.39, 0.61), GE 0.56 cm (95% CI: 0.42, 0.69)) but not for Fuji CR (0.06 cm (95% CI: -0.10, 0.23)). Additionally, within each system, reader-specific differences varied in magnitude and direction (p
Methods: A patient-specific 3D-printed breast model was generated using 3D-printing techniques for the construction of the hollow skin and fibroglandular region shells. Then, the T1 relaxation times of the five selected materials (agarose gel, silicone rubber with/without fish oil, silicone oil, and peanut oil) were measured on a 3T MRI system to determine the appropriate ones to represent the MR imaging characteristics of fibroglandular and adipose tissues. Results were then compared to the reference values of T1 relaxation times of the corresponding tissues: 1,324.42±167.63 and 449.27±26.09 ms, respectively. Finally, the materials that matched the T1 relaxation times of the respective tissues were used to fill the 3D-printed hollow breast shells.
Results: The silicone and peanut oils were found to closely resemble the T1 relaxation times and imaging characteristics of these two tissues, which are 1,515.8±105.5 and 405.4±15.1 ms, respectively. The agarose gel with different concentrations, ranging from 0.5 to 2.5 wt%, was found to have the longest T1 relaxation times.
Conclusions: A patient-specific 3D-printed breast phantom was successfully designed and constructed using silicone and peanut oils to simulate the MR imaging characteristics of fibroglandular and adipose tissues. The phantom can be used to investigate different MR breast imaging protocols for the quantitative assessment of breast density.
METHODS: We used digitised mammograms for 371 monozygotic twin pairs, aged 40-70 years without a prior diagnosis of breast cancer at the time of mammography, from the Australian Mammographic Density Twins and Sisters Study. We generated normalised, age-adjusted, and standardised risk scores based on textures using the Cirrus algorithm and on three spatially independent dense areas defined by increasing brightness threshold: light areas, bright areas, and brightest areas. Causal inference was made using the Inference about Causation from Examination of FAmilial CONfounding (ICE FALCON) method.
RESULTS: The mammogram risk scores were correlated within twin pairs and with each other (r = 0.22-0.81; all P breast cancer. For example our findings are consistent with the brightest areas being more aetiologically important than lighter areas for screen-detected breast cancer; conversely, light areas being more aetiologically important for interval breast cancer. Additionally, specific textural features capture aetiologically independent breast cancer risk information from dense areas. These findings highlight the utility of ICE FALCON and family data in decomposing the associations between intercorrelated disease biomarkers into distinct biological pathways.