Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing

, Volume 57, Issue 1, pp 289–298 | Cite as

Prediction of glandularity and breast radiation dose from mammography results in Japanese women

  • Mika Yamamuro
  • Yoshiyuki AsaiEmail author
  • Koji Yamada
  • Yoshiaki Ozaki
  • Masao Matsumoto
  • Takamichi Murakami
Original article


Glandularity has a marked impact on the incidence of breast cancer and the missed lesion rate of mammography. The aim of this study was to develop a novel model for predicting glandularity and patient radiation dose using physical factors that are easily determined prior to mammography. Data regarding glandularity and mean glandular dose were obtained from 331 mammograms. A stepwise multiple regression analysis model was developed to predict glandularity using age, compressed breast thickness and body mass index (BMI), while a model to predict mean glandular dose was created using quantified glandularity, age, compressed breast thickness, height and body weight. The most significant factor for predicting glandularity was age, the influence of which was 1.8 times that of BMI. The most significant factor for predicting mean glandular dose was compressed breast thickness, the influence of which was 1.4 times that of glandularity, 3.5 times that of age and 6.1 times that of height. Both models were statistically significant (both p < 0.0001). Easily determined physical factors were able to explain 42.8% of the total variance in glandularity and 62.4% of the variance in mean glandular dose.

Graphical abstract

Validation results of the above prediction model made using physical factors in Japanese women. The plotted points of actual vs. prediction glandularity shown in a are distributed in the vicinity of the diagonal line, and the residual plot for predicted glandularity shows an almost random distribution as shown in b. These distributions indicate the appropriateness of the prediction model.


Breast cancer Glandularity Individualised screening Mammography Mean glandular dose 


Funding information

This work was supported by JSPS Grants-in-Aid Scientific Research, Grant Number JP18K07736.

Compliance with ethical standards

This study was approved by the ethics committee of Kindai University, Japan, and all work was conducted in accordance with the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki.


  1. 1.
    Braithwaite D, Demb J, Henderson LM (2016) Optimal breast cancer screening strategies for older women: current perspectives. Clin Interv Aging 11:111–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Paul S, Solanki PP, Shahi UP, Srikrishna S (2015) Epidemiological study on breast cancer associated risk factors and screening practices among women in the Holy City of Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 16:8163–8171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Haddad FG, Kourie HR, Adib SM (2015) Trends in mammography utilization for breast cancer screening in a Middle-Eastern country: Lebanon 2005-2013. Cancer Epidemiol 39:819–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jayadevan R, Armada MJ, Shaheen R, Mulcahy C, Slanetz PJ (2015) Optimizing digital mammographic image quality for full-field digital detectors: artifacts encountered during the QC process. Radiographics 35:2080–2089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Holland K, van Gils CH, Mann RM, Karssemeijer N (2017) Quantification of masking risk in screening mammography with volumetric breast density maps. Breast Cancer Res Treat 162:541–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kamal RM, Abdel Razek NM, Hassan MA, Shaalan MA (2007) Missed breast carcinoma; why and how to avoid? J Egypt Natl Canc Inst 19:178–194PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    McCarthy AM, Keller BM, Pantalone LM, Hsieh MK, Synnestvedt M, Conant EF, Armstrong K, Kontos D (2016) Racial differences in quantitative measures of area and volumetric breast density. J Natl Cancer Inst 108:djw104. CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sawada T, Akashi S, Nakamura S, Kuwayama T, Enokido K, Yoshida M, Hashimoto R, Ide T, Masuda H, Taruno K, Oyama H, Takamaru T, Kanada Y, Ikeda M, Kosugi N, Sato H, Nakayama S, Ata A, Tonouchi Y, Sakai H, Matsunaga Y, Matsutani A (2017) Digital volumetric measurement of mammographic density and the risk overlooking cancer in Japanese women. Breast Cancer 24:708–713. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Babić I, Trstenjak VH (2014) Mammography screening—how persistent should we be in the recommendations? Coll Antropol 38:207–209PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Depypere H, Desreux J, Pérez-López FR, Ceausu I, Erel CT, Lambrinoudaki I, Schenck-Gustafsson K, van der Schouw YT, Simoncini T, Tremollieres F, Rees M, EMAS (2014) EMAS position statement: individualized breast cancer screening versus population-based mammography screening programmes. Maturitas 79:481–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sullivan CL, Pandya A, Min RJ, Drotman M, Hentel K (2015) The development and implementation of a patient-centered radiology consultation service: a focus on breast density and additional screening options. Clin Imaging 39:731–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chau SL, Alabaster A, Luikart K, Brenman LM, Habel LA (2017) The effect of California’s breast density notification legislation on breast cancer screening. J Prim Care Community Health 8:55–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ekpo EU, Mello-Thoms C, Rickard M, Brennan PC, McEntee MF (2016) Breast density (BD) assessment with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): agreement between Quantra™ and 5th edition BI-RADS®. Breast 30:185–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brandt KR, Scott CG, Ma L, Mahmoudzadeh AP, Jensen MR, Whaley DH, Wu FF, Malkov S, Hruska CB, Norman AD, Heine J, Shepherd J, Pankratz VS, Kerlikowske K, Vachon CM (2016) Comparison of clinical and automated breast density measurements: implications for risk prediction and supplemental screening. Radiology 279:710–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Damases CN, Mello-Thoms C, McEntee MF (2016) Inter-observer variability in mammographic density assessment using Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists (RANZCR) synoptic scales. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 60:329–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Machida Y, Saita A, Namba H, Fukuma E (2016) Automated volumetric breast density estimation out of digital breast tomosynthesis data: feasibility study of a new software version. Springerplus 5:780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shiina N, Sakakibara M, Fujisaki K, Iwase T, Nagashima T, Sangai T, Kubota Y, Akita S, Takishima H, Miyazaki M (2016) Volumetric breast density is essential for predicting cosmetic outcome at the late stage after breast-conserving surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol 42:481–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Youk JH, Gweon HM, Son EJ, Kim JA (2016) Automated volumetric breast density measurements in the era of the BI-RADS fifth edition: a comparison with visual assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 206:1056–1062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Youn I, Choi S, Kook SH, Choi YJ (2016) Mammographic breast density evaluation in Korean women using fully automated volumetric assessment. J Korean Med Sci 31:457–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gilbert FJ, Tucker L, Gillan MGC et al (2015) Health technology assessment: breast density assessment. NHS 19:29–44Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yamamuro Y, Yamada K, Asai Y et al (2016) Accurate quantification of glandularity and its applications with regard to breast radiation doses and missed lesion rates during individualized screening mammography. In: Tingberg A, Lång K, Timberg P (eds) Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Breast Imaging, vol 9699. Springer-Verlag, New York, Inc., New York, pp 377–384Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    van Engeland S, Snoeren PR, Huisman H, Boetes C, Karssemeijer N (2006) Volumetric breast density estimation from full-field digital mammograms. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 25:273–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Maeda K, Matsumoto M, Taniguchi A (2005) Compton-scattering measurement of diagnostic x-ray spectrum using high-resolution Schottky CdTe detector. Med Phys 32:1542–1547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hubbell JH, Seltzer SM (1995) Tables of X-ray mass attenuation coefficients and mass energy absorption coefficients 1 keV to 20 MeV for elements Z1 to 92 and 48 additional substances of dosimetric interest. Technology Administration USGPO Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dance DR, Skinner CL, Young KC, Beckett JR, Kotre CJ (2000) Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose using the UK mammography dosimetry protocol. Phys Med Biol 45:3225–3240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dance DR, Hunt RA, Bakic PR, Maidment AD, Sandborg M, Ullman G, Alm CG (2005) Breast dosimetry using high-resolution voxel phantoms. Radiat Prot Dosi 114:359–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dance DR, Young KC, van Engen RE (2009) Further factors for the estimation of mean glandular dose using the United Kingdom, European and IAEA breast dosimetry protocols. Phys Med Biol 54:4361–4372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Halinski RS, Feldt LS (1970) The selection of variables in multiple regression analysis. J Educat Measur 7:151–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sickles EA, D’Orsi CJ, Bassett LW, et al. (2013) ACR BI-RADS® mammography. In: ACR BI-RADS® Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. American College of Radiology, Reston, VAGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gosch D, Jendrass S, Scholz M, Kahn T (2006) Radiation exposure in full-field digital mammography with a selenium flat-panel detector. Rofo 178:693–697 [Article in German]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ruschin M, Timberg P, Bath M, Hemdal B, Svahn T, Saunders RS, Samei E, Andersson I, Mattsson S, Chakrabort DP, Tingber A (2007) Dose dependence of mass and microcalcification detection in digital mammography: free response human observer studies. Med Phys 34:400–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mehnati P, Alizadeh H, Hoda H (2016) 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 17:2259–2263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hanna M, Dumas I, Orain M, Jacob S, Têtu B, Sanschagrin F, Bureau A, Poirier B, Diorio C (2017) Association between expression of inflammatory markers in normal breast tissue and mammographic density among premenopausal and postmenopausal women. Menopause 24:524–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lewis MC, Irshad A, Ackerman S, Cluver A, Pavic D, Spruill L, Ralston J, Leddy RJ (2016) Assessing the relationship of mammographic breast density and proliferative breast disease. Breast J 22:541–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lundberg FE, Johansson AL, Rodriguez-Wallberg K, Brand JS, Czene K, Hall P, Iliadou AN (2016) Association of infertility and fertility treatment with mammographic density in a large screening-based cohort of women: a cross-sectional study. Breast Cancer Res 18:36–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nyante SJ, Sherman ME, Pfeiffer RM, Berrington de Gonzalez A, Brinton LA, Bowles EJ, Hoover RN, Glass A, Gierach GL (2016) Longitudinal change in mammographic density among ER-positive breast cancer patients using Tamoxifen. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 25:212–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Medical and Biological Engineering 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mika Yamamuro
    • 1
  • Yoshiyuki Asai
    • 1
    Email author
  • Koji Yamada
    • 1
  • Yoshiaki Ozaki
    • 2
  • Masao Matsumoto
    • 3
  • Takamichi Murakami
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Central RadiologyKindai University HospitalOsaka-sayamaJapan
  2. 2.Kyoto Prefectural Police HeadquartersResearch Institute of Scientific InvestigationKyotoJapan
  3. 3.Division of Health Sciences, Graduate School of MedicineOsaka UniversitySuitaJapan
  4. 4.Department of Radiology, School of MedicineKobe UniversityKobeJapan

Personalised recommendations