Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 20, 2025
Tracking the Mammary Architectural Features and Detecting Breast Cancer with Magnetic Resonance Diffusion Tensor Imaging
Published on: December 15, 2014
Breast density effect on the sensitivity of digital screening mammography in a UK cohort
Nicholas R Payne1, Sarah E Hickman1,2, Richard Black3
1Department of Radiology, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Box 218, Level 5, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK.
Objectives:
To assess the performance of breast cancer screening by category of breast density and age in a UK screening cohort.
Methods:
Raw full-field digital mammography data from a single site in the UK, forming a consecutive 3-year cohort of women aged 50 to 70 years from 2016 to 2018, were obtained retrospectively. Breast density was assessed using Volpara software. Examinations were grouped by density category and age group (50-60 and 61-70 years) to analyse screening performance. Statistical analysis was performed to determine the association between density categories and age groups. Volumetric breast density was assessed as a binary classifier of interval cancers (ICs) to find an optimal density threshold.
Results:
Forty-nine thousand nine-hundred forty-eight screening examinations (409 screen-detected cancers (SDCs) and 205 ICs) were included in the analysis. Mammographic sensitivity, SDC/(SDC + IC), decreased with increasing breast density from 75.0% for density a (p = 0.839, comparisons made to category b), to 73.5%, 59.8% (p = 0.001), and 51.3% (p < 0.001) in categories b, c, and d, respectively. IC rates were highest in the densest categories with rates of 1.8 (p = 0.039), 3.2, 5.7 (p < 0.001), and 7.9 (p < 0.001) per thousand for categories a, b, c, and d, respectively. The recall rate increased with breast density, leading to more false positive recalls, especially in the younger age group. There was no significant difference between the optimal density threshold found, 6.85, and that Volpara defined as the b/c boundary, 7.5.
Conclusions:
The performance of screening is significantly reduced with increasing density with IC rates in the densest category four times higher than in women with fatty breasts. False positives are a particular issue for the younger subgroup without prior examinations.
Clinical Relevance Statement:
In women attending screening there is significant underdiagnosis of breast cancer in those with dense breasts, most marked in the highest density category but still three times higher than in women with fatty breasts in the second highest category.
Key Points:
Breast density can mask cancers leading to underdiagnosis on mammography. Interval cancer rate increased with breast density categories 'a' to 'd'; 1.8 to 7.9 per thousand. Recall rates increased with increasing breast density, leading to more false positive recalls.
