Definition and research guide
This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.
Content available: 4 complete abstracts (1,038 words), 10 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.
Definition
Measurement of relative composition of different breast tissue types often determined from mammography; ultrasonography; or MRI.
Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.
Also known as: Breast Densities; Mammographic Breast Density; Breast Densities, Mammographic; Breast Density, Mammographic; Mammographic Breast Densities; Mammographic Density; Density, Mammographic; Mammographic Densities.
Where it fits in the MeSH classification
- Broader topics
- Body Constitution
Related concepts
- Breast
- Mammography
- Ultrasonography
Research landscape
PubMed indexes 1,949 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Breast Density” (counts retrieved 2026-10-31). 1,054 of them (54.1%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is 2020 onward with 1,054 records.
Reviews account for 172 records (8.8%) and meta-analyses for 35. Randomized controlled trials number 67 (3.4%) as a share of all records on the topic.
Show the data
| Period | Records |
|---|---|
| through 1999 | 0 |
| 2000-2009 | 0 |
| 2010-2019 | 934 |
| 2020 onward | 1,054 |
Publication-type chart data
| Type | Records | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Reviews | 172 | 8.8% |
| Meta-analyses | 35 | 1.8% |
| Randomized controlled trials | 67 | 3.4% |
Method: PubMed query "Breast Density"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-10-31.
Reading the evidence in anatomy and physiology
Anatomy describes how body structures are built and physiology describes how they normally work, so most findings here are descriptive or mechanistic rather than evidence about treatment. Much of what is known comes from dissection, imaging, tissue studies and experiments in animals, and measurements in healthy volunteers can differ from those in people with disease or at different ages. Normal ranges vary between individuals and populations. Check whether a result was measured in people or in another species, the age and health of the participants, and the method used.
Evidence from open-access studies
These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.
| Study / authors | Year | Source label / design | Europe PMC citations | Licence / source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breast cancer screening in women with extremely dense breasts recommendations of the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) | 2022 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 283 | cc by PMID 35258677 · DOI · PMC9122856 |
| An overview of mammographic density and its association with breast cancer | 2018 | Review article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 200 | cc by PMID 29651637 · DOI · PMC5906528 |
| Mammographic breast density and the risk of breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis | 2022 | Meta-analysis Design not recorded in structured metadata | 157 | cc by PMID 36183671 · DOI · PMC9530665 |
| Incorporating Continuous Mammographic Density Into the BOADICEA Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Model | 2025 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 3 | cc by PMID 41004699 · DOI · PMC12502952 |
Breast cancer screening in women with extremely dense breasts recommendations of the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) [1]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- Breast density is an independent risk factor for the development of breast cancer and also decreases the sensitivity of mammography for screening.
- Closing excerpt
- KEY POINTS: • The recommendations in Figure 1 summarize the key points of the manuscript.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (269 words)
Breast density is an independent risk factor for the development of breast cancer and also decreases the sensitivity of mammography for screening. Consequently, women with extremely dense breasts face an increased risk of late diagnosis of breast cancer. These women are, therefore, underserved with current mammographic screening programs. The results of recent studies reporting on contrast-enhanced breast MRI as a screening method in women with extremely dense breasts provide compelling evidence that this approach can enable an important reduction in breast cancer mortality for these women and is cost-effective. Because there is now a valid option to improve breast cancer screening, the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) recommends that women should be informed about their breast density. EUSOBI thus calls on all providers of mammography screening to share density information with the women being screened. In light of the available evidence, in women aged 50 to 70 years with extremely dense breasts, the EUSOBI now recommends offering screening breast MRI every 2 to 4 years. The EUSOBI acknowledges that it may currently not be possible to offer breast MRI immediately and everywhere and underscores that quality assurance procedures need to be established, but urges radiological societies and policymakers to act on this now. Since the wishes and values of individual women differ, in screening the principles of shared decision-making should be embraced. In particular, women should be counselled on the benefits and risks of mammography and MRI-based screening, so that they are capable of making an informed choice about their preferred screening method. KEY POINTS: • The recommendations in Figure 1 summarize the key points of the manuscript.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 35258677 · DOI · PMC9122856
An overview of mammographic density and its association with breast cancer [2]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- In 2017, breast cancer became the most commonly diagnosed cancer among women in the US.
- Closing excerpt
- Finally, we will review the current legislation regarding the disclosure of MD on a traditional screening mammogram and the supplemental screening options available to women with dense breast tissue.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (219 words)
In 2017, breast cancer became the most commonly diagnosed cancer among women in the US. After lung cancer, breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality in women. The breast consists of several components, including milk storage glands, milk ducts made of epithelial cells, adipose tissue, and stromal tissue. Mammographic density (MD) is based on the proportion of stromal, epithelial, and adipose tissue. Women with high MD have more stromal and epithelial cells and less fatty adipose tissue, and are more likely to develop breast cancer in their lifetime compared to women with low MD. Because of this correlation, high MD is an independent risk factor for breast cancer. Further, mammographic screening is less effective in detecting suspicious lesions in dense breast tissue, which can lead to late-stage diagnosis. Molecular differences between dense and non-dense breast tissues explain the underlying biological reasons for why women with dense breasts are at a higher risk for developing breast cancer. The goal of this review is to highlight the current molecular understanding of MD, its association with breast cancer risk, the demographics pertaining to MD, and the environmental factors that modulate MD. Finally, we will review the current legislation regarding the disclosure of MD on a traditional screening mammogram and the supplemental screening options available to women with dense breast tissue.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 29651637 · DOI · PMC5906528
Mammographic breast density and the risk of breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis [3]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- ObjectivesMammographic density is a well-defined risk factor for breast cancer and having extremely dense breast tissue is associated with a one-to six-fold increased risk of breast cancer.
- Closing excerpt
- This is a novel and lower risk estimate compared to previously reported and might be explained due to the use of digital mammography and BI-RADS lexicon 5th edition.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (240 words)
ObjectivesMammographic density is a well-defined risk factor for breast cancer and having extremely dense breast tissue is associated with a one-to six-fold increased risk of breast cancer. However, it is questioned whether this increased risk estimate is applicable to current breast density classification methods. Therefore, the aim of this study was to further investigate and clarify the association between mammographic density and breast cancer risk based on current literature.MethodsMedline, Embase and Web of Science were systematically searched for articles published since 2013, that used BI-RADS lexicon 5th edition and incorporated data on digital mammography. Crude and maximally confounder-adjusted data were pooled in odds ratios (ORs) using random-effects models. Heterogeneity regarding breast cancer risks were investigated using I2 statistic, stratified and sensitivity analyses.ResultsNine observational studies were included. Having extremely dense breast tissue (BI-RADS density D) resulted in a 2.11-fold (95% CI 1.84-2.42) increased breast cancer risk compared to having scattered dense breast tissue (BI-RADS density B). Sensitivity analysis showed that when only using data that had adjusted for age and BMI, the breast cancer risk was 1.83-fold (95% CI 1.52-2.21) increased. Both results were statistically significant and homogenous.ConclusionsMammographic breast density BI-RADS D is associated with an approximately two-fold increased risk of breast cancer compared to having BI-RADS density B in general population women. This is a novel and lower risk estimate compared to previously reported and might be explained due to the use of digital mammography and BI-RADS lexicon 5th edition.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 36183671 · DOI · PMC9530665
Incorporating Continuous Mammographic Density Into the BOADICEA Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Model [4]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- PurposeBreast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA v7) predicts future breast cancer (BC) risk using data on cancer family history (FH), genetic markers, questionnaire-based risk factors, and mammographic density (MD) measured using the four-category Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS) classification.
- Closing excerpt
- ConclusionIncorporating continuous MD measurements into BOADICEA enhances BC risk stratification and facilitates the use of automated MD measures for risk prediction.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (310 words)
PurposeBreast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA v7) predicts future breast cancer (BC) risk using data on cancer family history (FH), genetic markers, questionnaire-based risk factors, and mammographic density (MD) measured using the four-category Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS) classification. However, BIRADS requires manual reading, which is impractical on a large scale and may cause information loss. We extended BOADICEA to incorporate continuous MD measurements, calculated using the automated Volpara and STRATUS tools.MethodsWe used data from the Karolinska Mammography Project for Risk Prediction of Breast Cancer cohort (60,276 participants; 1,167 incident BC). Associations between MD measurements and BC risk were estimated in a randomly selected training subset (two thirds of the data set). Percent MD residuals were calculated after regressing on age at mammography and BMI. Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for FH and BOADICEA risk factors, and were incorporated into BOADICEA. The remaining one third of the cohort was used to assess the performance of the extended BOADICEA (v7.2) in predicting 5-year risks.ResultsThe BC HRs per standard deviation of residual STRATUS density were estimated to be 1.48 (95% CI, 1.33 to 1.64) and 1.41 (95% CI, 1.27 to 1.56) for pre- and postmenopausal women, respectively. The corresponding estimates for Volpara density were 1.27 (95% CI, 1.15 to 1.40) and 1.38 (95% CI, 1.25 to 1.54). The extended BOADICEA showed improved discrimination in the testing data set over using BIRADS, with a 1%-4% increase in AUC across different combinations of risk factors. On the basis of 5-year BC risk with MD as the sole input, approximately 11% of the women were reclassified into lower risk categories and 18% into higher risk categories using the extended model.ConclusionIncorporating continuous MD measurements into BOADICEA enhances BC risk stratification and facilitates the use of automated MD measures for risk prediction.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 41004699 · DOI · PMC12502952
Key reviews and meta-analyses
The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.
- Research article Breast density implications and supplemental screening [5]
- Research article Mammographic density and ageing: A collaborative pooled analysis of cross-sectional data from 22 countries worldwide [6]
- Research article Beyond breast density: a review on the advancing role of parenchymal texture analysis in breast cancer risk assessment [7]
- Research article Digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening and diagnosis in women with dense breasts - a systematic review and meta-analysis [8]
- Research article Risk-based Breast Cancer Screening: Implications of Breast Density [9]
- Research article Breast Density and Risk of Breast Cancer in Asian Women: A Meta-analysis of Observational Studies [10]
References
- Mann RM, Athanasiou A, Baltzer PAT, Camps-Herrero J, Clauser P, Fallenberg EM, et al.. Breast cancer screening in women with extremely dense breasts recommendations of the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI). . 2022. PMID 35258677 · DOI · PMC9122856
- Nazari SS, Mukherjee P. An overview of mammographic density and its association with breast cancer. . 2018. PMID 29651637 · DOI · PMC5906528
- Bodewes FTH, van Asselt AA, Dorrius MD, Greuter MJW, de Bock GH. Mammographic breast density and the risk of breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. . 2022. PMID 36183671 · DOI · PMC9530665
- Ficorella L, Eriksson M, Czene K, Leslie G, Yang X, Carver T, et al.. Incorporating Continuous Mammographic Density Into the BOADICEA Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Model. . 2025. PMID 41004699 · DOI · PMC12502952
- Vourtsis A, Berg WA. Breast density implications and supplemental screening. Eur Radiol. 2019. PMID 30255244 · DOI · PMC6420861
- Burton A, Maskarinec G, Perez-Gomez B, Vachon C, Miao H, Lajous M, et al.. Mammographic density and ageing: A collaborative pooled analysis of cross-sectional data from 22 countries worldwide. PLoS Med. 2017. PMID 28666001 · DOI · PMC5493289
- Gastounioti A, Conant EF, Kontos D. Beyond breast density: a review on the advancing role of parenchymal texture analysis in breast cancer risk assessment. Breast Cancer Res. 2016. PMID 27645219 · DOI · PMC5029019
- Phi XA, Tagliafico A, Houssami N, Greuter MJW, de Bock GH. Digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening and diagnosis in women with dense breasts - a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cancer. 2018. PMID 29615072 · DOI · PMC5883365
- Lee CI, Chen LE, Elmore JG. Risk-based Breast Cancer Screening: Implications of Breast Density. Med Clin North Am. 2017. PMID 28577623 · DOI · PMC5458625
- Bae JM, Kim EH. Breast Density and Risk of Breast Cancer in Asian Women: A Meta-analysis of Observational Studies. J Prev Med Public Health. 2016. PMID 27951629 · DOI · PMC5160133
About this article
- Sources
- NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
- Verification
- Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-10-31; title, year and DOI matched.
- Review state
- automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
- Version
- 1, last updated 2026-10-31.
See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.
Evidence strength
EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.