Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2010 Feb;19(2):418-28.
doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-09-1059.

Screen-film mammographic density and breast cancer risk: a comparison of the volumetric standard mammogram form and the interactive threshold measurement methods

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Screen-film mammographic density and breast cancer risk: a comparison of the volumetric standard mammogram form and the interactive threshold measurement methods

Zoe Aitken et al. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010 Feb.

Abstract

Background: Mammographic density is a strong risk factor for breast cancer, usually measured by an area-based threshold method that dichotomizes the breast area on a mammogram into dense and nondense regions. Volumetric methods of breast density measurement, such as the fully automated standard mammogram form (SMF) method that estimates the volume of dense and total breast tissue, may provide a more accurate density measurement and improve risk prediction.

Methods: In 2000-2003, a case-control study was conducted of 367 newly confirmed breast cancer cases and 661 age-matched breast cancer-free controls who underwent screen-film mammography at several centers in Toronto, Canada. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios of breast cancer associated with categories of mammographic density, measured with both the threshold and the SMF (version 2.2beta) methods, adjusting for breast cancer risk factors.

Results: Median percent density was higher in cases than in controls for the threshold method (31% versus 27%) but not for the SMF method. Higher correlations were observed between SMF and threshold measurements for breast volume/area (Spearman correlation coefficient = 0.95) than for percent density (0.68) or for absolute density (0.36). After adjustment for breast cancer risk factors, odds ratios of breast cancer in the highest compared with the lowest quintile of percent density were 2.19 (95% confidence interval, 1.28-3.72; P(t) <0.01) for the threshold method and 1.27 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-2.04; Pt = 0.32) for the SMF method.

Conclusion: Threshold percent density is a stronger predictor of breast cancer risk than the SMF version 2.2beta method in digitized images.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow Chart of Recruitment of Study Participants
Figure 2
Figure 2
Example of cranio-caudal image mammographic density readings in the threshold and SMF methods
Figure 3
Figure 3
Histograms of percent and absolute density and breast size, threshold and SMF methods and their scatter plots (vertical lines locate the median value)

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. McCormack VA, dos Santos Silva I. Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006;15:1159–69. - PubMed
    1. Wolfe JN, Saftlas AF, Salane M. Mammographic parenchymal patterns and quantitative evaluation of mammographic densities: a case-control study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1987;148:1087–92. - PubMed
    1. Tabar L, Dean PB. Mammographic parenchymal patterns. Risk indicator for breast cancer? Jama. 1982;247:185–9. - PubMed
    1. BI-RADS . Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. American College of Radiology; Reston, VA: 1998.
    1. Byng JW, Boyd NF, Fishell E, Jong RA, Yaffe MJ. The quantitative analysis of mammographic densities. Phys Med Biol. 1994;39:1629–38. - PubMed

Publication types