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
. 2019 Jun 1;111(6):629-632.
doi: 10.1093/jnci/djy210.

Trends in Clinical Breast Density Assessment From the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium

B L Sprague  1 , K Kerlikowske  2 , E J A Bowles  3 , G H Rauscher  4 , C I Lee  5 , A N A Tosteson  6 , D L Miglioretti  7
Affiliations

Trends in Clinical Breast Density Assessment From the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium

B L Sprague et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. .

Abstract

Changes to mammography practice, including revised Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) density classification guidelines and implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), may impact clinical breast density assessment. We investigated temporal trends in clinical breast density assessment among 2 990 291 digital mammography (DM) screens and 221 063 DBT screens interpreted by 722 radiologists from 144 facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. After age-standardization, 46.3% (95% CI = 44.1% to 48.6%) of DM screens were assessed as dense (heterogeneously/extremely dense) during the BI-RADS 4th edition era (2005-2013), compared to 46.5% (95% CI = 43.8% to 49.1%) during the 5th edition era (2014-2016) (P = .93 from two-sided generalized score test). Among DBT screens in the BI-RADS 5th edition era, 45.8% (95% CI = 42.0% to 49.7%) were assessed as dense (P = .77 from two-sided generalized score test) compared to 46.5% (95% CI = 43.8% to 49.1%) dense on DM in BI-RADS 5th edition era. Results were similar when examining all four density categories and age subgroups. Clinicians, researchers, and policymakers may reasonably expect stable density distributions across screened populations despite changes to the BI-RADS guidelines and implementation of DBT.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Breast density distribution for 2 990 291 digital screening mammograms among 1 080 427 women in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium by calendar year, 2005–2016.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, 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;1383:168–175. - PubMed
    1. Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ, et al. Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;3563:227–236. - PubMed
    1. Tice JA, Miglioretti DL, Li CS, et al. Breast density and benign breast disease: risk assessment to identify women at high risk of breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;3328:3137–3143. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kerlikowske K, Scott CG, Mahmoudzadeh AP, et al. Automated and clinical breast imaging reporting and data system density measures predict risk for screen-detected and interval cancers: a case-control study. Ann Intern Med. 2018;16811:757–765. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Alonzo-Proulx O, Mawdsley GE, Patrie JT, Yaffe MJ, Harvey JA.. Reliability of automated breast density measurements. Radiology. 2015;2752:366–376. - PubMed