Literature DB >> 12893074

Secular stability and reliability of measurements of the percentage of dense tissue on mammograms.

Jacques Benichou1, Celia Byrne, Laura A Capece, Leslie E Carroll, Kathy Hurt-Mullen, David Y Pee, Martine Salane, Catherine Schairer, Mitchell H Gail.   

Abstract

Elevated mammographic density is associated with increased risk of breast cancer. We conducted a reliability study on mammographic density assessments to determine their potential usefulness for projecting individual breast cancer risk. We used baseline screening mammograms from 7251 women in the Breast Cancer Detection Demonstration Project (BCDDP). Repeated measurements from the same images were used to assess measurement variability by an experienced evaluator. Intraclass correlations of assessments over time usually exceeded 0.9, indicating usefulness for prospective applications. Data also indicated it may be reasonable to include cases identified in the first year of screening together with other cases in developing a risk model. Older ages and increased weight were associated with decreased mammographic density. The density of the right breast slightly exceeded that of the left. Among women who developed breast cancer, the baseline mammographic density of the ipsilateral (diseased) breast was 0.53 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20-0.86) percentage units higher than in the contralateral breast.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12893074     DOI: 10.1016/s0361-090x(03)00092-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Detect Prev        ISSN: 0361-090X


  6 in total

1.  Use of clinical history affects accuracy of interpretive performance of screening mammography.

Authors:  Patricia A Carney; Andrea J Cook; Diana L Miglioretti; Stephen A Feig; Erin Aiello Bowles; Berta M Geller; Karla Kerlikowske; Mark Kettler; Tracy Onega; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2011-10-15       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  Reproducibility of BI-RADS breast density measures among community radiologists: a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Mary C Spayne; Charlotte C Gard; Joan Skelly; Diana L Miglioretti; Pamela M Vacek; Berta M Geller
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2012-05-21       Impact factor: 2.431

3.  Determinants of the reliability of ultrasound tomography sound speed estimates as a surrogate for volumetric breast density.

Authors:  Zeina G Khodr; Mark A Sak; Ruth M Pfeiffer; Nebojsa Duric; Peter Littrup; Lisa Bey-Knight; Haythem Ali; Patricia Vallieres; Mark E Sherman; Gretchen L Gierach
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Longitudinal association of anthropometry with mammographic breast density in the Study of Women's Health Across the Nation.

Authors:  Katherine W Reeves; Roslyn A Stone; Francesmary Modugno; Roberta B Ness; Victor G Vogel; Joel L Weissfeld; Laurel A Habel; Barbara Sternfeld; Jane A Cauley
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2009-03-01       Impact factor: 7.396

5.  Beyond breast cancer: mammographic features and mortality risk in a population of healthy women.

Authors:  Rachel A Murphy; Catherine Schairer; Gretchen L Gierach; Celia Byrne; Mark E Sherman; Thomas C Register; Jingzhong Ding; Stephen B Kritchevsky; Tamara B Harris
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-10-25       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Mammographic density and risk of breast cancer by age and tumor characteristics.

Authors:  Kimberly A Bertrand; Rulla M Tamimi; Christopher G Scott; Matthew R Jensen; V Pankratz; Daniel Visscher; Aaron Norman; Fergus Couch; John Shepherd; Bo Fan; Yunn-Yi Chen; Lin Ma; Andrew H Beck; Steven R Cummings; Karla Kerlikowske; Celine M Vachon
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2013-11-04       Impact factor: 8.408

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.