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
. 2021 Dec 14;28(6):5384-5394.
doi: 10.3390/curroncol28060448.

Optimal Breast Density Characterization Using a Three-Dimensional Automated Breast Densitometry System

Reika Yoshida  1   2 , Takenori Yamauchi  2 , Sadako Akashi-Tanaka  1 , Misaki Matsuyanagi  1 , Kanae Taruno  1 , Terumasa Sawada  1 , Akatsuki Kokaze  2 , Seigo Nakamura  1
Affiliations

Optimal Breast Density Characterization Using a Three-Dimensional Automated Breast Densitometry System

Reika Yoshida et al. Curr Oncol. .

Abstract

Dense breasts are a risk factor for breast cancer. Assessment of breast density is important and radiologist-dependent. We objectively measured mammographic density using the three-dimensional automatic mammographic density measurement device Volpara™ and examined the criteria for combined use of ultrasonography (US). Of 1227 patients who underwent primary breast cancer surgery between January 2019 and April 2021 at our hospital, 441 were included. A case series study was conducted based on patient age, diagnostic accuracy, effects of mammography (MMG) combined with US, size of invasion, and calcifications. The mean density of both breasts according to the Volpara Density Grade (VDG) was 0-3.4% in 2 patients, 3.5-7.4% in 55 patients, 7.5-15.4% in 173 patients, and ≥15.5% in 211 patients. Breast density tended to be higher in younger patients. Diagnostic accuracy of MMG tended to decrease with increasing breast density. US detection rates were not associated with VDG on MMG and were favorable at all densities. The risk of a non-detected result was high in patients without malignant suspicious calcifications. Supplementary use of US for patients without suspicious calcifications on MMG and high breast density, particularly ≥25.5%, could improve the breast cancer detection rate.

Keywords: Volpara; breast density; breast neoplasms; mammography; ultrasonography.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Relationship between Volpara Density Grade and age.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Volpara Density Grade (VDG) according to age.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Size of invasion in the non-detected and detected groups, as shown by mammography.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Risk factors for non-detected results and flow diagram leading to a non-detected result. VDG—Volpara Density Grade.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Boyd N.F., Rommens J.M., Vogt K., Lee V., Hopper J.L., Yaffe M.J., Paterson A.D. Mammographic breast density as an intermediate phenotype for breast cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2005;6:798–808. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(05)70390-9. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Harvey J.A., Bovbjerg V.E. Quantitative assessment of mammographic breast density: Relationship with breast cancer risk. Radiology. 2004;230:29–41. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2301020870. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Jeffers A.M., Sieh W., Lipson J.A., Rothstein J.H., McGuire V., Whittemore A.S., Rubin D.L. Breast cancer risk and mammographic density assessed with semiautomated and fully automated methods and BI-RADS. Radiology. 2017;282:348–355. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2016152062. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kerlikowske K., Zhu W., Tosteson A.N., Sprague B.L., Tice J.A., Lehman C.D., Miglioretti D.L. Identifying women with dense breasts at high risk for interval cancer: A cohort study. Ann. Intern. Med. 2015;162:673–681. doi: 10.7326/M14-1465. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. McCormack V.A., dos Santos Silva I. Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: A meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 2006;15:1159–1169. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-06-0034. - DOI - PubMed