Breast cancer risk and Mammographic Density assessed with semiautomated and Fully automated Methods and Bi-raDs

Abra M. Jeffers, Weiva Sieh, Jaf A. Lipson, Joseph H. Rothstein, Valerie McGuire, Alice S. Whittemore, Daniel L. Rubin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

60 Scopus citations


Purpose: To compare three metrics of breast density on full-feld digital mammographic (FFDM) images as predictors of future breast cancer risk. Materials and Methods: This institutional review board-approved study included 125 women with invasive breast cancer and 274 age-and race-matched control subjects who underwent screening FFDM during 2004-2013 and provided informed consent. The percentage of density and dense area were assessed semiautomatically with software (Cumulus 4.0; University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada), and volumetric percentage of density and dense volume were assessed automatically with software (Volpara; Volpara Solutions, Wellington, New Zealand). Clinical Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) classifcations of breast density were extracted from mammography reports. Odds ratios and 95% confdence intervals (CIs) were estimated by using conditional logistic regression stratifed according to age and race and adjusted for body mass index, parity, and menopausal status, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was computed. Results: The adjusted odds ratios and 95% CIs for each standard deviation increment of the percentage of density, dense area, volumetric percentage of density, and dense volume were 1.61 (95% CI: 1.19, 2.19), 1.49 (95% CI: 1.15, 1.92), 1.54 (95% CI: 1.12, 2.10), and 1.41 (95% CI: 1.11, 1.80), respectively. Odds ratios for women with extremely dense breasts compared with those with scattered areas of fbroglandular density were 2.06 (95% CI: 0.85, 4.97) and 2.05 (95% CI: 0.90, 4.64) for BI-RADS and Volpara density classifcations, respectively. Clinical BI-RADS was more accurate (AUC, 0.68; 95% CI: 0.63, 0.74) than Volpara (AUC, 0.64; 95% CI: 0.58, 0.70) and continuous measures of percentage of density (AUC, 0.66; 95% CI: 0.60, 0.72), dense area (AUC, 0.66; 95% CI: 0.60, 0.72), volumetric percentage of density (AUC, 0.64; 95% CI: 0.58, 0.70), and density volume (AUC, 0.65; 95% CI: 0.59, 0.71), although the AUC differences were not statistically signifcant. Conclusion: Mammographic density on FFDM images was positively associated with breast cancer risk by using the computer assisted methods and BI-RADS. BI-RADS classifcation was as accurate as computer-assisted methods for discrimination of patients from control subjects.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)348-355
Number of pages8
Issue number2
StatePublished - Mar 2017
Externally publishedYes


Dive into the research topics of 'Breast cancer risk and Mammographic Density assessed with semiautomated and Fully automated Methods and Bi-raDs'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this