In this study, breast density was the only risk factor significantly associated with a diagnosis of interval cancer versus screen-detected cancer. Quantitative VBD captures the potential masking risk of breast density more precisely than does the widely used visual BI-RADS density classification system.

Mammographic breast density (MBD) has been proven to be an important risk factor for breast cancer and an important determinant of mammographic screening performance. The measurement of density has changed dramatically since its inception. Initial qualitative measurement methods have been found to have limited consistency between readers, and in regards to breast cancer risk. Following the introduction of full-field digital mammography, more sophisticated measurement methodology is now possible. Automated computer-based density measurements can provide consistent, reproducible, and objective results. In this review paper, we describe various methods currently available to assess MBD, and provide a discussion on the clinical utility of such methods for breast cancer screening.

No abstract

Objectives:Initial review of patients undergoing screening mammography imaged with a combination of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) plus full field digital mammography (FFDM) compared with FFDM alone.Materials and Methods:From June 2011 to December 2011, all patients presenting for routine screening mammography were offered a combination DBT plus FFDM exam. Under institutional review board approval, we reviewed 524 patients who opted for combination DBT plus FFDM and selected a sample group of 524 FFDM screening exams from the same time period for a comparative analysis. The χ2 (Chi-square) test was used to compare recall rates, breast density, personal history of breast cancer, and family history of breast cancer between the two groups.Results:Recall rate for FFDM, 11.45%, was significantly higher (P < 0001) than in the combination DBT plus FFDM group (4.20%). The biopsy rate in the FFDM group was 2.29% (12/524), with a cancer detection rate of 0.38% (2/524, or 3.8 per 1000) and positive predictive value (PPV) of 16.7% (2/12). The biopsy rate for the DBT plus FFDM group was 1.14% (n = 6/524), with a cancer detection rate 0.57% (n = 3/524, or 5.7 per 1000) and PPV of 50.0% (n = 3/6). Personal history of breast cancer in the FFDM group was significantly lower (P < 0.0001) than in the combination DBT plus FFDM group; 2.5% and 5.7%, respectively. A significant difference in family history of breast cancer (P < 0.0001) was found, with a higher rate in the combination DBT plus FFDM group (36.0% vs. 53.8%). There was a significant difference between the combination DBT plus FFDM group and FFDM alone group, when comparing breast density (P < 0.0147, 61.64% vs. 54.20% dense breasts, respectively) with a higher rate of dense breasts in the DBT plus FFDM group. In follow-up, one cancer was detected within one year of normal screening mammogram in the combination DBT plus FFDM group.Conclusion:Our initial experience found the recall rate in the combination DBT plus FFDM group was significantly lower than in the FFDM alone group, despite the fact that the combination DBT plus FFDM group had additional risk factors.

Second-look sonography has value in the evaluation of abnormalities found on breast MRI. We found enhancements in 70% (128 of 182), yielding 39 cancers.