Breast density scales: the metric matters.

OBJECTIVE

Measures of percent mammographic density (PMD) are often categorized using various density scales. The purpose of this study was to examine information loss associated with the use of categorical density scales.

METHODS

Baseline PMD was assessed at 1% precision for 2,374 females. The data were used to create 21-category, 4-category and 2-category density scales. R-squared and root mean square error were used to evaluate the effect of categorizing PMD. The area under the receiver operator characteristic curves were compared between cancer risk models employing solely categorical PMD scales and solely baseline PMD for a subset of females (424 cases, 848 controls).

RESULTS

R-squared value decreased from 1.00 (1% PMD) to 0.56 (2-category scale), while root mean square error increased from 0.00 (1% PMD) to 10.83 (2-category scale). The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve decreased from 0.64 for a cancer risk model using 1% PMD to 0.58 for a risk model using a 21-category density scale (p < 0.0001), 0.55 for a 4-category Breast Imaging, Reporting and Data System-like scale (p < 0.0001) and 0.50 for a 2-category Breast Imaging, Reporting and Data System-like scale (high vs low) (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Categorizing PMD measures into categorical density scales leads to a significant loss of information. Indeed, a simple high versus low split of PMD using a 50% cut point yields a cancer risk model with no discriminatory power. Advances in knowledge: Use of categorical mammographic density scales rather than continuous percent mammographic density measures leads to significant loss of information. Breast cancer risk models using categorical mammographic density scales perform more poorly than models using continuous PMD measures.