Prediction of glandularity and breast radiation dose from mammography results in Japanese women
Glandularity has a marked impact on the incidence of breast cancer and the missed lesion rate of mammography. The aim of this study was to develop a novel model for predicting glandularity and patient radiation dose using physical factors that are easily determined prior to mammography. Data regarding glandularity and mean glandular dose were obtained from 331 mammograms. A stepwise multiple regression analysis model was developed to predict glandularity using age, compressed breast thickness and body mass index (BMI), while a model to predict mean glandular dose was created using quantified glandularity, age, compressed breast thickness, height and body weight. The most significant factor for predicting glandularity was age, the influence of which was 1.8 times that of BMI. The most significant factor for predicting mean glandular dose was compressed breast thickness, the influence of which was 1.4 times that of glandularity, 3.5 times that of age and 6.1 times that of height. Both models were statistically significant (both p < 0.0001). Easily determined physical factors were able to explain 42.8% of the total variance in glandularity and 62.4% of the variance in mean glandular dose.
KeywordsBreast cancer Glandularity Individualised screening Mammography Mean glandular dose
This work was supported by JSPS Grants-in-Aid Scientific Research, Grant Number JP18K07736.
Compliance with ethical standards
This study was approved by the ethics committee of Kindai University, Japan, and all work was conducted in accordance with the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki.
- 8.Sawada T, Akashi S, Nakamura S, Kuwayama T, Enokido K, Yoshida M, Hashimoto R, Ide T, Masuda H, Taruno K, Oyama H, Takamaru T, Kanada Y, Ikeda M, Kosugi N, Sato H, Nakayama S, Ata A, Tonouchi Y, Sakai H, Matsunaga Y, Matsutani A (2017) Digital volumetric measurement of mammographic density and the risk overlooking cancer in Japanese women. Breast Cancer 24:708–713. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-017-0763-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 10.Depypere H, Desreux J, Pérez-López FR, Ceausu I, Erel CT, Lambrinoudaki I, Schenck-Gustafsson K, van der Schouw YT, Simoncini T, Tremollieres F, Rees M, EMAS (2014) EMAS position statement: individualized breast cancer screening versus population-based mammography screening programmes. Maturitas 79:481–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Brandt KR, Scott CG, Ma L, Mahmoudzadeh AP, Jensen MR, Whaley DH, Wu FF, Malkov S, Hruska CB, Norman AD, Heine J, Shepherd J, Pankratz VS, Kerlikowske K, Vachon CM (2016) Comparison of clinical and automated breast density measurements: implications for risk prediction and supplemental screening. Radiology 279:710–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Gilbert FJ, Tucker L, Gillan MGC et al (2015) Health technology assessment: breast density assessment. NHS 19:29–44Google Scholar
- 21.Yamamuro Y, Yamada K, Asai Y et al (2016) Accurate quantification of glandularity and its applications with regard to breast radiation doses and missed lesion rates during individualized screening mammography. In: Tingberg A, Lång K, Timberg P (eds) Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Breast Imaging, vol 9699. Springer-Verlag, New York, Inc., New York, pp 377–384Google Scholar
- 24.Hubbell JH, Seltzer SM (1995) Tables of X-ray mass attenuation coefficients and mass energy absorption coefficients 1 keV to 20 MeV for elements Z1 to 92 and 48 additional substances of dosimetric interest. Technology Administration USGPO Washington DCGoogle Scholar
- 29.Sickles EA, D’Orsi CJ, Bassett LW, et al. (2013) ACR BI-RADS® mammography. In: ACR BI-RADS® Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. American College of Radiology, Reston, VAGoogle Scholar