John J Heine1, Ke Cao, Dana E Rollison. 1. H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Cancer Prevention & Control Division, Tampa, FL 33612, USA. john.heine@moffitt.org
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Breast density is a significant breast cancer risk factor measured from mammograms. Evidence suggests that the spatial variation in mammograms may also be associated with risk. We investigated the variation in calibrated mammograms as a breast cancer risk factor and explored its relationship with other measures of breast density using full field digital mammography (FFDM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A matched case-control analysis was used to assess a spatial variation breast density measure in calibrated FFDM images, normalized for the image acquisition technique variation. Three measures of breast density were compared between cases and controls: (a) the calibrated average measure, (b) the calibrated variation measure, and (c) the standard percentage of breast density (PD) measure derived from operator-assisted labeling. Linear correlation and statistical relationships between these three breast density measures were also investigated. RESULTS: Risk estimates associated with the lowest to highest quartiles for the calibrated variation measure were greater in magnitude (odds ratios: 1.0 [ref.], 3.5, 6.3, and 11.3) than the corresponding risk estimates for quartiles of the standard PD measure (odds ratios: 1.0 [ref.], 2.3, 5.6, and 6.5) and the calibrated average measure (odds ratios: 1.0 [ref.], 2.4, 2.3, and 4.4). The three breast density measures were highly correlated, showed an inverse relationship with breast area, and related by a mixed distribution relationship. CONCLUSION: The three measures of breast density capture different attributes of the same data field. These preliminary findings indicate the variation measure is a viable automated method for assessing breast density. Insights gained by this work may be used to develop a standard for measuring breast density.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Breast density is a significant breast cancer risk factor measured from mammograms. Evidence suggests that the spatial variation in mammograms may also be associated with risk. We investigated the variation in calibrated mammograms as a breast cancer risk factor and explored its relationship with other measures of breast density using full field digital mammography (FFDM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A matched case-control analysis was used to assess a spatial variation breast density measure in calibrated FFDM images, normalized for the image acquisition technique variation. Three measures of breast density were compared between cases and controls: (a) the calibrated average measure, (b) the calibrated variation measure, and (c) the standard percentage of breast density (PD) measure derived from operator-assisted labeling. Linear correlation and statistical relationships between these three breast density measures were also investigated. RESULTS: Risk estimates associated with the lowest to highest quartiles for the calibrated variation measure were greater in magnitude (odds ratios: 1.0 [ref.], 3.5, 6.3, and 11.3) than the corresponding risk estimates for quartiles of the standard PD measure (odds ratios: 1.0 [ref.], 2.3, 5.6, and 6.5) and the calibrated average measure (odds ratios: 1.0 [ref.], 2.4, 2.3, and 4.4). The three breast density measures were highly correlated, showed an inverse relationship with breast area, and related by a mixed distribution relationship. CONCLUSION: The three measures of breast density capture different attributes of the same data field. These preliminary findings indicate the variation measure is a viable automated method for assessing breast density. Insights gained by this work may be used to develop a standard for measuring breast density.
Authors: Olga Pawluczyk; Bindu J Augustine; Martin J Yaffe; Dan Rico; Jiwei Yang; Gordon E Mawdsley; Norman F Boyd Journal: Med Phys Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: N F Boyd; J W Byng; R A Jong; E K Fishell; L E Little; A B Miller; G A Lockwood; D L Tritchler; M J Yaffe Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1995-05-03 Impact factor: 13.506
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
Authors: Erin E E Fowler; Autumn Smallwood; Cassandra Miltich; Jennifer Drukteinis; Thomas A Sellers; John Heine Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2018-12-19 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Erin E E Fowler; Cassandra Hathaway; Fabryann Tillman; Robert Weinfurtner; Thomas A Sellers; John Heine Journal: Biomed Phys Eng Express Date: 2019-05-22
Authors: Erin E Fowler; Autumn Smallwood; Nadia Khan; Cassandra Miltich; Jennifer Drukteinis; Thomas A Sellers; John Heine Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2018-12-10 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Erin E Fowler; Anders Berglund; Michael J Schell; Thomas A Sellers; Steven Eschrich; John Heine Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2020-03-12 Impact factor: 6.317