Search Results (2)

Mammographic breast density (MBD) is an important imaging biomarker of breast cancer risk, but it has been suggested that increased MBD is not a genuine finding once corrected for age and body mass index (BMI). This study examined the association of various factors, including both residing in and working in the urban setting, with MBD. Questionnaires were completed by 1144 women attending for mammography at the London Breast Institute in 2012–2013. Breast density was assessed with an automated volumetric breast density measurement system (Volpara) and compared with subjective radiologist assessment. Multivariable linear regression was used to model the relationship between MBD and residence in the urban setting as well as working in the urban setting, adjusting for both age and BMI and other menstrual, reproductive, and lifestyle factors. Urban residence was significantly associated with an increasing percent of MBD, but this association became non-significant when adjusted for age and BMI. This was not the case for women who were both residents in the urban setting and still working. Our results suggest that the association between urban women and increased MBD can be partially explained by their lower BMI, but for women still working, there appear to be other contributing factors. Full article

In order to find a consistent, simple and time-efficient method of assessing mammographic breast density (MBD), different methods of assessing density comparing subjective, quantitative, semi-subjective and semi-quantitative methods were investigated. Subjective MBD of anonymized mammographic cases (n = 250) from a national breast-screening programme was rated by 49 radiologists from two countries (UK and USA) who were voluntarily recruited. Quantitatively, three measurement methods, namely VOLPARA, Hand Delineation (HD) and ImageJ (IJ) were used to calculate breast density using the same set of cases, however, for VOLPARA only mammographic cases (n = 122) with full raw digital data were included. The agreement level between methods was analysed using weighted kappa test. Agreement between UK and USA radiologists and VOLPARA varied from moderate (κw = 0.589) to substantial (κw = 0.639), respectively. The levels of agreement between USA, UK radiologists, VOLPARA with IJ were substantial (κw = 0.752, 0.768, 0.603), and with HD the levels of agreement varied from moderate to substantial (κw = 0.632, 0.680, 0.597), respectively. This study found that there is variability between subjective and objective MBD assessment methods, internationally. These results will add to the evidence base, emphasising the need for consistent, simple and time-efficient MBD assessment methods. Additionally, the quickest method to assess density is the subjective assessment, followed by VOLPARA, which is compatible with a busy clinical setting. Moreover, the use of a more limited two-scale system improves agreement levels and could help minimise any potential country bias. Full article