Literature DB >> 19258482

Texture features from mammographic images and risk of breast cancer.

Armando Manduca1, Michael J Carston, John J Heine, Christopher G Scott, V Shane Pankratz, Kathy R Brandt, Thomas A Sellers, Celine M Vachon, James R Cerhan.   

Abstract

Mammographic percent density (PD) is a strong risk factor for breast cancer, but there has been relatively little systematic evaluation of other features in mammographic images that might additionally predict breast cancer risk. We evaluated the association of a large number of image texture features with risk of breast cancer using a clinic-based case-control study of digitized film mammograms, all with screening mammograms before breast cancer diagnosis. The sample was split into training (123 cases and 258 controls) and validation (123 cases and 264 controls) data sets. Age-adjusted and body mass index (BMI)-adjusted odds ratios (OR) per SD change in the feature, 95% confidence intervals, and the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) were obtained using logistic regression. A bootstrap approach was used to identify the strongest features in the training data set, and results for features that validated in the second half of the sample were reported using the full data set. The mean age at mammography was 64.0+/-10.2 years, and the mean time from mammography to breast cancer was 3.7+/-1.0 (range, 2.0-5.9 years). PD was associated with breast cancer risk (OR, 1.49; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-1.78). The strongest features that validated from each of several classes (Markovian, run length, Laws, wavelet, and Fourier) showed similar ORs as PD and predicted breast cancer at a similar magnitude (AUC=0.58-0.60) as PD (AUC=0.58). All of these features were automatically calculated (unlike PD) and measure texture at a coarse scale. These features were moderately correlated with PD (r=0.39-0.76), and after adjustment for PD, each of the features attenuated only slightly and retained statistical significance. However, simultaneous inclusion of these features in a model with PD did not significantly improve the ability to predict breast cancer.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19258482      PMCID: PMC2674983          DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-08-0631

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev        ISSN: 1055-9965            Impact factor:   4.254


  27 in total

1.  Spectral analysis of full field digital mammography data.

Authors:  John J Heine; Robert P Velthuizen
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Computerized analysis of digitized mammograms of BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers.

Authors:  Zhimin Huo; Maryellen L Giger; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Dulcy E Wolverton; Barbara L Weber; Charles E Metz; Weiming Zhong; Shelly A Cummings
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  The detection of change in mammographic density.

Authors:  J Stone; A Gunasekara; L J Martin; M Yaffe; S Minkin; N F Boyd
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 4.254

Review 4.  Limitations of the odds ratio in gauging the performance of a diagnostic, prognostic, or screening marker.

Authors:  Margaret Sullivan Pepe; Holly Janes; Gary Longton; Wendy Leisenring; Polly Newcomb
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2004-05-01       Impact factor: 4.897

Review 5.  Mammographic parenchymal patterns and breast cancer risk.

Authors:  A F Saftlas; M Szklo
Journal:  Epidemiol Rev       Date:  1987       Impact factor: 6.222

6.  Markovian analysis of cervical cell images.

Authors:  N J Pressman
Journal:  J Histochem Cytochem       Date:  1976-01       Impact factor: 2.479

7.  Risk for breast cancer development determined by mammographic parenchymal pattern.

Authors:  J N Wolfe
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1976-05       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  Wolfe's parenchymal pattern and percentage of the breast with mammographic densities: redundant or complementary classifications?

Authors:  Jacques Brisson; Caroline Diorio; Benoît Mâsse
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 4.254

9.  Feasibility of identifying amyloid and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy with the use of computerized quantitative texture analysis of clinical echocardiographic data.

Authors:  K Chandrasekaran; P E Aylward; S R Fleagle; T L Burns; J B Seward; A J Tajik; S M Collins; D J Skorton
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  1989-03-15       Impact factor: 24.094

10.  Relationship between mammographic density and the risk of breast cancer in Japanese women: a case-control study.

Authors:  Yasuko Nagao; Yoshihiro Kawaguchi; Yasuyuki Sugiyama; Shietoyo Saji; Yoshitomo Kashiki
Journal:  Breast Cancer       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 4.239

View more
  57 in total

1.  A novel automated mammographic density measure and breast cancer risk.

Authors:  John J Heine; Christopher G Scott; Thomas A Sellers; Kathleen R Brandt; Daniel J Serie; Fang-Fang Wu; Marilyn J Morton; Beth A Schueler; Fergus J Couch; Janet E Olson; V Shane Pankratz; Celine M Vachon
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2012-07-03       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Parenchymal texture analysis in digital mammography: robust texture feature identification and equivalence across devices.

Authors:  Brad M Keller; Andrew Oustimov; Yan Wang; Jinbo Chen; Raymond J Acciavatti; Yuanjie Zheng; Shonket Ray; James C Gee; Andrew D A Maidment; Despina Kontos
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2015-04-03

3.  Breast density estimation from high spectral and spatial resolution MRI.

Authors:  Hui Li; William A Weiss; Milica Medved; Hiroyuki Abe; Gillian M Newstead; Gregory S Karczmar; Maryellen L Giger
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2016-12-28

4.  Comparative analysis of image-based phenotypes of mammographic density and parenchymal patterns in distinguishing between BRCA1/2 cases, unilateral cancer cases, and controls.

Authors:  Hui Li; Maryellen L Giger; Li Lan; Jyothi Janardanan; Charlene A Sennett
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2014-11-13

5.  Reduction of false-positive recalls using a computerized mammographic image feature analysis scheme.

Authors:  Maxine Tan; Jiantao Pu; Bin Zheng
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2014-07-17       Impact factor: 3.609

6.  Quantitative analysis of breast parenchymal patterns using 3D fibroglandular tissues segmented based on MRI.

Authors:  Ke Nie; Daniel Chang; Jeon-Hor Chen; Chieh-Chih Hsu; Orhan Nalcioglu; Min-Ying Su
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 4.071

7.  Analysis of parenchymal texture with digital breast tomosynthesis: comparison with digital mammography and implications for cancer risk assessment.

Authors:  Despina Kontos; Lynda C Ikejimba; Predrag R Bakic; Andrea B Troxel; Emily F Conant; Andrew D A Maidment
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-07-19       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Parenchymal texture analysis in digital mammography: A fully automated pipeline for breast cancer risk assessment.

Authors:  Yuanjie Zheng; Brad M Keller; Shonket Ray; Yan Wang; Emily F Conant; James C Gee; Despina Kontos
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 4.071

9.  Using Convolutional Neural Networks for Enhanced Capture of Breast Parenchymal Complexity Patterns Associated with Breast Cancer Risk.

Authors:  Aimilia Gastounioti; Andrew Oustimov; Meng-Kang Hsieh; Lauren Pantalone; Emily F Conant; Despina Kontos
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2018-02-01       Impact factor: 3.173

10.  The spatial distribution of radiodense breast tissue: a longitudinal study.

Authors:  Snehal M Pinto Pereira; Valerie A McCormack; Sue M Moss; Isabel dos Santos Silva
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2009-06-03       Impact factor: 6.466

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.