Relationship between Volpara Density Grade and Compressed Breast Thickness in Japanese Patients with Breast Cancer
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Patients
2.2. Data Collection
2.3. Statistical Analysis According to Prognosis
2.4. Ethical Approval and Consent for Participation
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Sung, H.; Ferlay, J.; Siegel, R.L.; Laversanne, M.; Soerjomataram, I.; Jemal, A.; Bray, F. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2021, 71, 209–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Abdoli, G.; Bottai, M.; Sandelin, K.; Moradi, T. Breast Cancer Diagnosis and Mortality by Tumor Stage and Migration Background in a Nationwide Cohort Study in Sweden. Breast 2017, 31, 57–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tanaka, R.; Yamagishi, Y.; Koiwai, T.; Kono, T.; Fukumura-Koga, M.; Einama, T.; Yamasaki, T.; Sato, K.; Ueno, H.; Kishi, Y.; et al. Comparison between AJCC 8th Prognostic Stage and UICC Anatomical Stage in Patients with Primary Breast Cancer: A Single Institutional Retrospective Study. Breast Cancer 2020, 27, 1114–1125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Saquib, N.; Saquib, J.; Ioannidis, J.P.A. Does Screening for Disease Save Lives in Asymptomatic Adults? Systematic Review of Meta-Analyses and Randomized Trials. Int. J. Epidemiol. 2015, 44, 264–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Park, I.H.; Ko, K.; Joo, J.; Park, B.; Jung, S.Y.; Lee, S.; Kwon, Y.; Kang, H.S.; Lee, E.S.; Lee, K.S.; et al. High Volumetric Breast Density Predicts Risk for Breast Cancer in Postmenopausal, but Not Premenopausal, Korean Women. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2014, 21, 4124–4132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boyd, N.F.; Martin, L.J.; Bronskill, M.; Yaffe, M.J.; Duric, N.; Minkin, S. Breast Tissue Composition and Susceptibility to Breast Cancer. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2010, 102, 1224–1237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ursin, G.; Ma, H.; Wu, A.H.; Bernstein, L.; Salane, M.; Parisky, Y.R.; Astrahan, M.; Siozon, C.C.; Pike, M.C.; Oncology, R. Mammographic Density and Breast Cancer in Three Ethnic Groups. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 2003, 12, 332–338. [Google Scholar]
- Boyd, N.F.; Guo, H.; Martin, L.J.; Sun, L.; Stone, J.; Fishell, E.; Jong, R.A.; Hislop, G.; Chiarelli, A.; Minkin, S.; et al. Mammographic Density and the Risk and Detection of Breast Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2007, 356, 227–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCormack, V.A.; Dos Santos Silva, I. Breast Density and Parenchymal Patterns as Markers of Breast Cancer Risk: A Meta-Analysis. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 2006, 15, 1159–1169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nevler, A.; Shabtai, E.; Rosin, D.; Hoffman, A.; Gutman, M.; Shabtai, M. Mammographic Breast Density as a Predictor of Radiological Findings Requiring Further Investigation. Isr. Med. Assoc. J. 2016, 18, 32–35. [Google Scholar]
- Dai, H.; Yan, Y.; Wang, P.; Liu, P.; Cao, Y.; Xiong, L.; Luo, Y.; Pan, T.; Ma, X.; Wang, J.; et al. Distribution of Mammographic Density and Its Influential Factors among Chinese Women. Int. J. Epidemiol. 2014, 43, 1240–1251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ohnuki, K.; Tohno, E.; Tsunoda, H.; Uematsu, T.; Nakajima, Y. Overall Assessment System of Combined Mammography and Ultrasound for Breast Cancer Screening in Japan. Breast Cancer 2021, 28, 254–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiarelli, A.M.; Blackmore, K.M.; Muradali, D.; Done, S.J.; Majpruz, V.; Weerasinghe, A.; Mirea, L.; Eisen, A.; Rabeneck, L.; Warner, E. Performance Measures of Magnetic Resonance Imaging plus Mammography in the High Risk Ontario Breast Screening Program. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2021, 112, 136–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tedeschi, E.; Caranci, F.; Giordano, F.; Angelini, V.; Cocozza, S.; Brunetti, A. Gadolinium Retention in the Body: What We Know and What We Can Do. Radiol. Medica 2017, 122, 589–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fujioka, T.; Kubota, K.; Toriihara, A.; Machida, Y.; Okazawa, K.; Nakagawa, T.; Saida, Y.; Tateishi, U. Tumor Characteristics of Ductal Carcinoma in Situ of Breast Visualized on [F-18] Fluorodeoxyglucose-Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography: Results from a Retrospective Study. World J. Radiol. 2016, 8, 743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nagata, C.; Matsubara, T.; Fujita, H.; Nagao, Y.; Shibuya, C.; Kashiki, Y.; Shimizu, H. Mammographic Density and the Risk of Breast Cancer in Japanese Women. Br. J. Cancer 2005, 92, 2102–2106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ekpo, E.U.; McEntee, M.F. Measurement of Breast Density with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis-a Systematic Review. Br. J. Radiol. 2014, 87, 20140460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ekpo, E.U.; Hogg, P.; Highnam, R.; McEntee, M.F. Breast Composition: Measurement and Clinical Use. Radiography 2015, 21, 324–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ciatto, S.; Bernardi, D.; Calabrese, M.; Durando, M.; Gentilini, M.A.; Mariscotti, G.; Monetti, F.; Moriconi, E.; Pesce, B.; Roselli, A.; et al. A First Evaluation of Breast Radiological Density Assessment by QUANTRA Software as Compared to Visual Classification. Breast 2012, 21, 503–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seo, J.M.; Ko, E.S.; Han, B.K.; Ko, E.Y.; Shin, J.H.; Hahn, S.Y. Automated Volumetric Breast Density Estimation: A Comparison with Visual Assessment. Clin. Radiol. 2013, 68, 690–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aitken, Z.; McCormack, V.A.; Highnam, R.P.; Martin, L.; Gunasekara, A.; Melnichouk, O.; Mawdsley, G.; Peressotti, C.; Yaffe, M.; Boyd, N.F.; et al. Screen-Film Mammographic Density and Breast Cancer Risk: A Comparison of the Volumetric Standard Mammogram Form and the Interactive Threshold Measurement Methods. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 2010, 19, 418–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Engler, C.; Paixão, L.; de Souza, L.F.; Chevalier, M.; Nogueira, M.D.S. Assessment of Breast Density in Women from Different Regions of Brazil. Heliyon 2021, 7, e07198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Moshina, N.; Roman, M.; Waade, G.G.; Sebuødegård, S.; Ursin, G.; Hofvind, S. Breast Compression Parameters and Mammographic Density in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Programme. Eur. Radiol. 2018, 28, 1662–1672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Noma, M.; Ozaki, S.; Ishikura, M.; Saito, H. Itamoto, T. Compressed Breast Thickness of Mammography and Detection of Breast Lesion Considering Breast Content Ratio (Japanese). Jpn. Assoc. Breast Cancer Screen. 2021, 30, 173–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mehnati, P.; Alizadeh, H.; Hoda, H. Relation between Mammographic Parenchymal Patterns and Breast Cancer Risk: Considering BMI, Compressed Breast Thickness and Age of Women in Tabriz, Iran. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 2016, 17, 2259–2263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Du, X.; Yu, N.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, J. The Relationship of the Mean Glandular Dose with Compressed Breast Thickness in Mammography. J. Public Health Emerg. 2017, 1, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Branderhorst, W.; de Groot, J.E.; Highnam, R.; Chan, A.; Böhm-Vélez, M.; Broeders, M.J.M.; den Heeten, G.J.; Grimbergen, C.A. Mammographic Compression—A Need for Mechanical Standardization. Eur. J. Radiol. 2015, 84, 596–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lau, S.; Abdul Aziz, Y.F.; Ng, K.H. Mammographic Compression in Asian Women. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0175781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uematsu, T. Sensitivity and Specificity of Screening Mammography without Clinical Breast Examination among Japanese Women Aged 40–49 Years: Analysis of Data from the J-START Results. Breast Cancer 2022, 29, 928–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Astley, S.M.; Harkness, E.F.; Sergeant, J.C.; Warwick, J.; Stavrinos, P.; Warren, R.; Wilson, M.; Beetles, U.; Gadde, S.; Lim, Y.; et al. A Comparison of Five Methods of Measuring Mammographic Density: A Case-Control Study. Breast Cancer Res. 2018, 20, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
n = 419 | % | |
---|---|---|
Mean age, years (range) | 54 (31–93) | |
Mean height, cm (range) | 156.1 (132.5–174.0) | |
Mean body weight, kg (range) | 53.2 (35.3–97.3) | |
Mean BMI (range) | 22.2 (15.3–39.8) | |
Chief compliant | ||
Subjective symptoms | 211 | 51% |
Abnormal health check-up findings without subjective symptoms | 180 | 43% |
Abnormal health check-up findings with subjective symptoms | 16 | 3% |
During the follow-up of other diseases | 11 | 3% |
Unknown | 1 | 0.2% |
Clinical T | n | % |
---|---|---|
Tis | 52 | 12% |
T1 | 244 | 58% |
T2 | 109 | 26% |
T3 | 10 | 2% |
T4 | 4 | 1% |
Pathological stage | ||
Stage 0 | 52 | 12% |
Stage I | 211 | 50% |
Stage II | 134 | 33% |
Stage III | 22 | 5% |
Pathology | ||
Ductal carcinoma in situ | 52 | 12% |
Invasive ductal carcinoma | 344 | 82% |
Other | 23 | 5% |
Subtype | ||
Luminal | 335 | 80% |
Luminal-HER2 | 25 | 6% |
HER2 | 35 | 8% |
Triple-negative | 21 | 5% |
Unknown | 3 | 0.70% |
Neoadjuvant therapy | ||
Yes | 47 | 12% |
No | 372 | 88% |
MG Category | % | |
---|---|---|
1 and 2 | 49 | 12% |
3 | 97 | 23% |
4 | 189 | 45% |
5 | 84 | 20% |
MG findings ※ | ||
Mass | 112 | 27% |
Calcification | 69 | 17% |
Focal asymmetric density | 40 | 10% |
Architectural distortion | 39 | 10% |
VDG | ||
Non-dense group | 75 | 18% |
a: fatty breast (VDG: under 3.5%) | 7 | 3% |
b: fatty breast with scattered fibroglandular densities (VDG: between 3.5% and 7.5%) | 64 | 15% |
Dense group | 348 | 82% |
c: heterogeneously fibroglandular breast (VDG: between 7.5% and 15.5%) | 164 | 39% |
d: extremely fibroglandular parenchyma (VDG: over 15.5%) | 184 | 43% |
Median CBT, mm (range) | 40.95 (11.7–81.8) |
Non-Dense Group (n = 71) | Dense Group (n = 348) | p Value | |
---|---|---|---|
Mean age ± SD, years (range) | 64.5 ± 11.0 (43–84) | 55.8 ± 11.0 (31–93) | <0.01 |
Mean CBT ± SD (range) | 54.5 ± 10.9 (33.1–77.0) | 39.0 ± 11.6 (11.7–81.8) | <0.01 |
Mean BMI ± SD (range) | 25.9 ± 4.6 (19.2–39.9) | 22.1 ± 3.2 (15.3–34.8) | <0.01 |
MG ≥ C-3 | 68 (96%) | 302 (87%) | 0.02 |
Clinical T | Under T1 vs. over T2 0.67 | ||
Tis | 7 (9%) | 45 (13%) | |
T1 | 45 (65%) | 199 (57%) | |
T2 | 18 (25%) | 91 (26%) | |
T3 | 0 (0%) | 10 (3%) | |
T4 | 1 (1%) | 3 (0.8%) |
CBT < 30 mm (n = 86) | CBT ≥ 30 mm (n = 262) | p Value | |
---|---|---|---|
Mean age ± SD, years (range) | 56.8 ± 16.0 | 55.4 ± 12.4 | 0.39 |
Mean BMI ± SD (range) | 19.7 ± 2.1 | 22.9 ± 3.1 | <0.01 |
Mean VDG ± SD, % (range) | 19.8 ± 6.0 | 15.7 ± 6.3 | <0.01 |
MG categories 3, 4, and 5 | 78 (91%) | 224 (85%) | 0.64 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Adachi, M.; Ishiba, T.; Maruya, S.; Hayashi, K.; Kumaki, Y.; Oda, G.; Aruga, T. Relationship between Volpara Density Grade and Compressed Breast Thickness in Japanese Patients with Breast Cancer. Diagnostics 2024, 14, 1651. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14151651
Adachi M, Ishiba T, Maruya S, Hayashi K, Kumaki Y, Oda G, Aruga T. Relationship between Volpara Density Grade and Compressed Breast Thickness in Japanese Patients with Breast Cancer. Diagnostics. 2024; 14(15):1651. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14151651
Chicago/Turabian StyleAdachi, Mio, Toshiyuki Ishiba, Sakiko Maruya, Kumiko Hayashi, Yuichi Kumaki, Goshi Oda, and Tomoyuki Aruga. 2024. "Relationship between Volpara Density Grade and Compressed Breast Thickness in Japanese Patients with Breast Cancer" Diagnostics 14, no. 15: 1651. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14151651