PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Breast density, or the amount of fibroglandular tissue in the breast, has become a recognized and independent marker for breast cancer risk. Public awareness of breast density as a possible risk factor for breast cancer has resulted in legislation for risk stratification purposes in many US states. This review will provide a comprehensive overview of the currently available imaging modalities for qualitative and quantitative breast density assessment and the current evidence on breast density and breast cancer risk assessment. RECENT FINDINGS: To date, breast density assessment is mainly performed with mammography and to some extent with magnetic resonance imaging. Data indicate that computerized, quantitative techniques in comparison with subjective visual estimations are characterized by higher reproducibility and robustness. SUMMARY: Breast density reduces the sensitivity of mammography due to a masking effect and is also a recognized independent risk factor for breast cancer. Standardized breast density assessment using automated volumetric quantitative methods has the potential to be used for risk prediction and stratification and in determining the best screening plan for each woman.

PURPOSE: To develop a multiparametric [18F]FDG positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (PET/MRI) model for breast cancer diagnosis incorporating imaging biomarkers of breast tumors and contralateral healthy breast tissue. METHODS: In this prospective study and retrospective data analysis, 141 patients (mean 57 years) with an imaging abnormality detected on mammography and/or ultrasound (BI-RADS 4/5) underwent combined multiparametric [18F]FDG PET/MRI with PET/computed tomography and multiparametric MRI of the breast at 3 T. Images were evaluated and the following were recorded: for the tumor, BI-RADS descriptors on dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE)-MRI, mean apparent diffusion co-efficient (ADCmean) on diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), and maximum standard uptake value (SUVmax) on [18F]FDG-PET; and for the contralateral healthy breast, background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) and amount of fibroglandular tissue (FGT) on DCE-MRI, ADCmean on DWI, and SUVmax. Histopathology served as standard of reference. Uni-, bi-, and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the relationships between malignancy and imaging features. Predictive discrimination of benign and malignant breast lesions was examined using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). RESULTS: There were 100 malignant and 41 benign lesions (size: median 1.9, range 0.5-10 cm). The multivariate regression model incorporating significant univariate predictors identified tumor enhancement kinetics (P = 0.0003), tumor ADCmean (P < 0.001), and BPE of the contralateral healthy breast (P = 0.0019) as independent predictors for breast cancer diagnosis. Other biomarkers did not reach significance. Combination of the three significant biomarkers achieved an AUC value of 0.98 for breast cancer diagnosis. CONCLUSION: A multiparametric [18F]FDG PET/MRI diagnostic model incorporating both qualitative and quantitative parameters of the tumor and the healthy contralateral tissue aids breast cancer diagnosis.