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
. 2014 Nov;23(11):2338-48.
doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-0257. Epub 2014 Aug 19.

Comparison of mammographic density assessed as volumes and areas among women undergoing diagnostic image-guided breast biopsy

Gretchen L Gierach  1 , Berta M Geller  2 , John A Shepherd  3 , Deesha A Patel  4 , Pamela M Vacek  2 , Donald L Weaver  2 , Rachael E Chicoine  2 , Ruth M Pfeiffer  5 , Bo Fan  3 , Amir Pasha Mahmoudzadeh  3 , Jeff Wang  3 , Jason M Johnson  2 , Sally D Herschorn  2 , Louise A Brinton  4 , Mark E Sherman  6
Affiliations

Comparison of mammographic density assessed as volumes and areas among women undergoing diagnostic image-guided breast biopsy

Gretchen L Gierach et al. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014 Nov.

Abstract

Background: Mammographic density (MD), the area of non-fatty-appearing tissue divided by total breast area, is a strong breast cancer risk factor. Most MD analyses have used visual categorizations or computer-assisted quantification, which ignore breast thickness. We explored MD volume and area, using a volumetric approach previously validated as predictive of breast cancer risk, in relation to risk factors among women undergoing breast biopsy.

Methods: Among 413 primarily white women, ages 40 to 65 years, undergoing diagnostic breast biopsies between 2007 and 2010 at an academic facility in Vermont, MD volume (cm(3)) was quantified in craniocaudal views of the breast contralateral to the biopsy target using a density phantom, whereas MD area (cm(2)) was measured on the same digital mammograms using thresholding software. Risk factor associations with continuous MD measurements were evaluated using linear regression.

Results: Percent MD volume and area were correlated (r = 0.81) and strongly and inversely associated with age, body mass index (BMI), and menopause. Both measures were inversely associated with smoking and positively associated with breast biopsy history. Absolute MD measures were correlated (r = 0.46) and inversely related to age and menopause. Whereas absolute dense area was inversely associated with BMI, absolute dense volume was positively associated.

Conclusions: Volume and area MD measures exhibit some overlap in risk factor associations, but divergence as well, particularly for BMI.

Impact: Findings suggest that volume and area density measures differ in subsets of women; notably, among obese women, absolute density was higher with volumetric methods, suggesting that breast cancer risk assessments may vary for these techniques.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest: No potential conflicts were disclosed by any authors.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The Single X-ray Absorptiometry (SXA) volumetric density method LEFT: The density phantom is affixed to the top compression paddle on a full-field digital mammography machine at the University of Vermont Fletcher Allen Health Care Medical Center; RIGHT: The digital mammogram is acquired with the phantom in the corner of the image to allow for automated computation of volumetric mammographic density.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Distributions and Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients (rs) for volume and area density measures, The BREAST Stamp Project, 2007–2010 (n=413)
Figure 3
Figure 3
Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients (rs) for volume and area density measures, stratified by body mass index (BMI), The BREAST Stamp Project, 2007–2010 (n=413)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Boyd NF, Lockwood GA, Byng JW, Tritchler DL, Yaffe MJ. Mammographic densities and breast cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1998;7:1133–44. - PubMed
    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. D’Orsi CJ, Bassett LW, Berg WA, et al. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: ACR BI-RADS-Mammography. 4. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2003.
    1. Yaffe M. Mammographic density. Measurement of mammographic density. Breast Cancer Research. 2008;10:209. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Highnam R, Pan X, Warren R, Jeffreys M, Davey Smith G, Brady M. Breast composition measurements using retrospective standard mammogram form (SMF) Phys Med Biol. 2006;51:2695–713. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms