Breast radiological density is a determinant of breast cancer risk and of mammography sensitivity and may be used to personalize screening approach. We first analyzed the reproducibility of visual density assessment by eleven experienced radiologists classifying a set of 418 digital mammograms: reproducibility was satisfactory on a four (BI-RADS D1-2-3-4: weighted kappa = 0.694-0.844) and on a two grade (D1-2 vs D3-4: kappa = 0.620-0.851), but subjects classified as with dense breast would range between 25.1 and 50.5% depending on the classifying reader. Breast density was then assessed by computer using the QUANTRA software which provided systematically lower density percentage values as compared to visual classification. In order to predict visual classification results in discriminating dense and non-dense breast subjects on a two grade scale (D3-4 vs, D1-2) the best fitting cut off value observed for QUANTRA was ≤22.0%, which correctly predicted 88.6% of D1-2, 89.8% of D3-4, and 89.0% of total cases. Computer assessed breast density is absolutely reproducible, and thus to be preferred to visual classification. Thus far few studies have addressed the issue of adjusting computer assessed density to reproduce visual classification, and more similar comparative studies are needed.

The Adjunct Screening With Tomosynthesis or Ultrasound in Women With Mammography-Negative Dense Breasts' interim analysis shows that ultrasound has better incremental BC detection than tomosynthesis in mammography-negative dense breasts at a similar FP-recall rate. However, future application of adjunct screening should consider that tomosynthesis detected more than 50% of the additional BCs in these women and could potentially be the primary screening modality.

DBT and MRI are superior to DM and US in the preoperative assessment of breast tumour size. DBT seems to improve the accuracy of DM, although MRI remains the most accurate imaging modality for breast cancer extension.

SM alone showed similar interpretive performance to FFDM, confirming its potential role as an alternative to FFDM in women having tomosynthesis, with the added advantage of halving the patient's dose exposure.

No abstract

No abstract

• The BI-RADS classification of MC differs for FFDM and DBT in 11/107 cases • DBT assigned lower BI-RADS classes compared to FFDM in 11 clusters • In 4/107 DBT may have missed some malignant and high-risk lesions • In 7/107 the 'underclassification' on DBT was correct, potentially avoiding unnecessary biopsies • DBT may miss a small proportion of malignant lesions.

Objective: To perform a systematic review of the methods used for background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) evaluation on breast MRI. Methods: Studies dealing with BPE assessment on breast MRI were retrieved from major medical libraries independently by four reviewers up to 6 October 2015. The keywords used for database searching are "background parenchymal enhancement", "parenchymal enhancement", "MRI" and "breast". The studies were included if qualitative and/or quantitative methods for BPE assessment were described. Results: Of the 420 studies identified, a total of 52 articles were included in the systematic review. 28 studies performed only a qualitative assessment of BPE, 13 studies performed only a quantitative assessment and 11 studies performed both qualitative and quantitative assessments. A wide heterogeneity was found in the MRI sequences and in the quantitative methods used for BPE assessment. Conclusion: A wide variability exists in the quantitative evaluation of BPE on breast MRI. More studies focused on a reliable and comparable method for quantitative BPE assessment are needed. Advances in knowledge: More studies focused on a quantitative BPE assessment are needed.