Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Breast Density Assessment, Risk, and Significance in the Screening of Breast Cancer

  • Breast Imaging (H. Ojeda-Fournier, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Radiology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Every breast is composed of varying degrees of fibroglandular breast tissue and fatty tissue. Breast density reflects the amount of fibroglandular tissue present relative to the amount of fat, and may be assessed either qualitatively or quantitatively. The most common classification of breast density used clinically is the qualitative, subjective scale from the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System 5th edition categorizing breast density using mammography as almost entirely fatty, scattered areas of fibroglandular density, heterogeneously dense, and extremely dense (D’Orsi et al. in Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: ACR BI-RADS, 2012). The latter two categories are usually considered “dense” breasts in terms of risk assessment. Though dense breasts likely contribute as a small independent risk factor for breast cancer, dense breast tissue on mammography may also obscure an underlying cancer, making it more difficult for the cancer to be detected mammographically. Several states have now passed laws requiring patients to be notified if they have dense breasts and their potential options for supplemental screening (Freer in Radiographics 35:302–315, 2015; Are You Dense Advocacy, Inc. D.E.N.S.E. ® State Efforts in http://areyoudenseadvocacy.org/dense/, 2015). Presently, however, evidence in support of supplemental screening in women with dense breasts is limited, often leading to confusion for both patients and clinicians, especially when supplemental screening methods may not be covered by insurance companies (Freer in Radiographics 35:302–315, 2015; Slanetz et al. in N Engl J Med 372:593–595, 2015). Newer models of calculating a patient’s lifetime risk of breast cancer while incorporating breast density may prove useful in developing future supplemental screening recommendations for women with dense breasts (Warwick et al. in Breast Cancer Res 16:451, 2014). The purpose of this article is to familiarize the radiologist with how breast density is assessed, how increased breast density may diminish sensitivity of screening mammography, and which patient populations with dense breasts may benefit from supplemental screening based on risk stratification.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: •• Of major importance

  1. D’Orsi CJ, Mendelson EB, Morris EA, et al. Breast imaging reporting and data system: ACR BI-RADS. 5th ed. Reston: American College of Radiology; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Freer PE. Mammographic breast density: impact on breast cancer risk and implications for screening. Radiographics. 2015;35(2):302–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Are You Dense Advocacy, Inc. D.E.N.S.E. ® State Efforts. 2015. http://areyoudenseadvocacy.org/dense/. Accessed Oct 2015.

  4. Slanetz PJ, Freer PE, Birdwell RL. Breast-density legislation-practical considerations. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(7):593–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Warwick J, Birke H, Stone J, et al. Mammographic breast density refines Tyrer-Cuzick estimates of breast cancer risk in high-risk women: findings from the placebo arm of the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study I. Breast Cancer Res. 2014;16(5):451.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ, et al. Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(3):227–36.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Egan RL, Mosteller RC. Breast cancer mammography patterns. Cancer. 1977;40(5):2087–90.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Whitehead J, Carlile T, Kopecky KJ, et al. Wolfe mammographic parenchymal patterns: a study of the masking hypothesis of Egan and Mosteller. Cancer. 1985;56(6):1280–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. 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;138(3):168–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sprague BL, Gangnon RE, Burt V, et al. Prevalence of mammographically dense breasts in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106(10):dju255.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Kerlikowske K, Zhu W, Hubbard RA, et al. Outcomes of screening mammography by frequency, breast density, and postmenopausal hormone therapy. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(9):807–16.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Ciatto S, Houssami N, Apruzzese A, et al. Categorizing breast mammographic density: intra- and interobserver reproducibility of BI-RADS density categories. Breast. 2005;14(4):269–75.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Nicholson BT, LoRusso AP, Smolkin M, Bovbjerg VE, Petroni GR, Harvey JA. Accuracy of assigned BI-RADS breast density category definitions. Acad Radiol. 2006;13(9):1143–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Winkler NS, Raza S, Mackesy M, Birdwell RL. Breast density: clinical implications and assessment methods. Radiographics. 2015;35(2):316–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Morrish OW, Tucker L, Black R, Willsher P, Duffy SW, Gilbert FJ. Mammographic breast density: comparison of methods for quantitative evaluation. Radiology. 2015;275(2):356–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wang J, Azziz A, Fan B, et al. Agreement of mammographic measures of volumetric breast density to MRI. PLoS One. 2013;8(12):e81653.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. •• Kerlikowske K, Zhu W, Tosteson AN, et al. Identifying women with dense breasts at high risk for interval cancer: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(10):673–81. This article is of high importance because it shows evidence that breast density alone should not fulfill criteria for the use of supplemental screening, and not all women with dense breast are at high risk for interval cancer.

  18. Tice JA, Cummings SR, Smith-Bindman R, Ichikawa L, Barlow WE, Kerlikowske K. Using clinical factors and mammographic breast density to estimate breast cancer risk: development and validation of a new predictive model. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148(5):337–47.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Visvanathan K, Hurley P, Bantug E, et al. Use of pharmacologic interventions for breast cancer risk reduction: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(23):2942–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007;57(2):75–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. McCormack VA, dos Santos Silva I. Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2006;15(6):1159–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Colin C, Schott AM, Valette PJ. Mammographic density is not a worthwhile examination to distinguish high cancer risk women in screening. Eur Radiol. 2014;24(10):2412–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sickles EA. The use of breast imaging to screen women at high risk for cancer. Radiol Clin N Am. 2010;48(5):859–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Pettersson A, Graff RE, Ursin G, et al. Mammographic density phenotypes and risk of breast cancer: a meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106(5):dju078.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Hart V, Reeves KW, Sturgeon SR, et al. The effect of change in body mass index on volumetric measures of mammographic density. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2015;24:1724–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Cuzick J. Epidemiology of breast cancer–selected highlights. Breast. 2003;12(6):405–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. McPherson K, Steel CM, Dixon JM. ABC of breast diseases: breast cancer-epidemiology, risk factors, and genetics. BMJ. 2000;321(7261):624–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Dontchos BN, Rahbar H, Partridge SC, et al. Are qualitative assessments of background parenchymal enhancement, amount of fibroglandular tissue on MR images, and mammographic density associated with breast cancer risk? Radiology. 2015;276(2):371–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Pisano ED, Hendrick RE, Yaffe MJ, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST. Radiology. 2008;246(2):376–83.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. US Food and Drug Administration MQSA National Statistics. http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/MammographyQualityStandardsActandProgram/FacilityScorecard/ucm113858.htm. Accessed Oct 2015.

  31. American College of Radiology Statement on Breast Tomosynthesis. http://www.acr.org/About-Us/Media-Center/Position-Statements/Position-Statements-Folder/20141124-ACR-Statement-on-Breast-Tomosynthesis. Accessed Oct 2015.

  32. •• Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, et al. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology. 2013;267(1):47–56. This article is of high importance as it reports evidence that digital breast tomosynthesis plus mammography detect more cancers than mammography alone.

  33. •• Haas BM, Kalra V, Geisel J, Raghu M, Durand M, Philpotts LE. Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening. Radiology. 2013;269(3):694–700. This article is of high importance as it reports evidence that digital breast tomosynthesis plus mammography decrease the recall rate in breast cancer screening.

  34. Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D, et al. Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(7):583–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Lee CI, Cevik M, Alagoz O, et al. Comparative effectiveness of combined digital mammography and tomosynthesis screening for women with dense breasts. Radiology. 2015;274(3):772–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. •• Tice JA, Ollendorf DA, Lee JM, Pearson SD. The comparative clinical effectiveness and value of supplemental screening tests following negative Mammography in women with dense breast tissue. Institute for clinical and economic review (ICER) 2013. http://www.ctaf.org/sites/default/files/assessments/ctaf-final-report-dense-breast-imaging-11.04.2013-b.pdf. Accessed 7 Oct 2015. This reference is of high importance as it is a consensus panel’s review of all screening modalities.

  37. Hooley RJ, Greenberg KL, Stackhouse RM, Geisel JL, Butler RS, Philpotts LE. Screening US in patients with mammographically dense breasts: initial experience with Connecticut Public Act 09-41. Radiology. 2012;265(1):59–69.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Weigert J, Steenbergen S. The connecticut experiments second year: ultrasound in the screening of women with dense breasts. Breast J. 2015;21(2):175–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. •• Berg WA, Zhang Z, Lehrer D, et al. Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk. JAMA. 2012;307(13):1394–404. This reference is of high importance because it reports the substantial decrease in the positive predictive value of supplemental ultrasound.

  40. Parris T, Wakefield D, Frimmer H. Real world performance of screening breast ultrasound following enactment of Connecticut Bill 458. Breast J. 2013;19(1):64–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Sobotka J, Hinrichs C. Breast density legislation: discussion of patient utilization and subsequent direct financial ramifications for insurance providers. J Am Coll Radiol. 2015;12(10):1011–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. •• Sprague BL, Stout NK, Schechter C, et al. Benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(3):157–66. This reference is of high importance as it demonstrates that supplemental screening US is likely not cost-effective in all women with dense breasts.

  43. vanGils CH, Utrecht UMC. Breast cancer screening with MRI in women aged 50–75 years with extremely dense breast tissue: the DENSE trial. 2015. http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01315015. Accessed 7 Oct 2015.

  44. Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Strobel K, Schild HH, Hilgers RD, Bieling HB. Abbreviated breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): first postcontrast subtracted images and maximum-intensity projection-a novel approach to breast cancer screening with MRI. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(22):2304–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. •• Mainiero MB, Lourenco A, Mahoney MC, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria Breast Cancer Screening. J Am Coll Radiol. 2013;10(1):11–4. This reference is of high importance as it states indications for screening MRI by the ACR.

  46. Bevers TB, Anderson BO, Bonaccio E, et al. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: breast cancer screening and diagnosis. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2009;7(10):1060–96.

    Google Scholar 

  47. •• Freer PE, Slanetz PJ, Haas JS, et al. Breast cancer screening in the era of density notification legislation: summary of 2014 Massachusetts experience and suggestion of an evidence-based management algorithm by multi-disciplinary expert panel. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;153(2):455–64. This reference is of high importance as it suggests an algorithm for supplemental screening based on risk stratification.

  48. Berg WA. Tailored supplemental screening for breast cancer: what now and what next? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192(2):390–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Oeffinger KC, Fontham ETH, Etzioni R, et al. Breast cancer screening for women at average risk 2015 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. JAMA. 2015;314(15):1599–614.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Volpara software image and corresponding mammogram courtesy of Jonathon Nguyen, MD and Jennifer Harvey, MD, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, VA.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Tufts Medical Center, 800 Washington St., Box 299, Boston, MA, 02111, USA

    Sirishma Kalli

  2. Department of Radiology, University of Utah Hospital, 30 N. 1900 E, Salt Lake City, UT, 84132, USA

    Phoebe E. Freer

Authors
  1. Sirishma Kalli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Phoebe E. Freer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Phoebe E. Freer.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Breast Imaging.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kalli, S., Freer, P.E. Breast Density Assessment, Risk, and Significance in the Screening of Breast Cancer. Curr Radiol Rep 4, 5 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40134-015-0130-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40134-015-0130-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation