A systematic review and meta-analysis of correlation of automated breast density measurement

Abstract

Introduction

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women and a leading cause of mortality. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the correlation between breast density measurements obtained from various software and visual assessments by radiologists using full-field digital mammography (FFDM).

Methods

Following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, five databases (Pubmed, Google Scholar, Science Direct, Cochrane Library, and MEDLINE) were searched for studies correlating volumetric breast density with breast cancer risk. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale and the Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist were used to assess the quality of the included studies. Meta-analysis of correlation was applied to aggregate correlation coefficients using a random-effects model using MedCalc Statistical Software version 19.2.6.

Results

The review included 22 studies with a total of 58,491 women. The pooled correlation coefficient for volumetric breast density amongst Volpara™ and Quantra™ was found to be 0.755 (95% CI 0.496–0.890, p < 0.001), indicating a high positive correlation, albeit with a significant heterogeneity (I² = 99.89%, p < 0.0001). Subgroup analyses based on study origin, quality, and methodology were performed but did not reveal the heterogeneity cause. Egger's and Begg's tests showed no significant publication bias.

Conclusion

Volumetric breast density is strongly correlated with breast cancer risk, underscoring the importance of accurate breast density assessment in screening programs. Automated volumetric measurement tools like Volpara™ and Quantra™ provide reliable assessments, potentially improving breast cancer risk prediction and management.

Implications for practice

Implementing fully automated breast density assessment tools could enhance consistency in clinical practice, minimizing observer variability and improving screening accuracy. These tools should be further validated against standardized criteria to ensure reliability in diverse clinical settings.