BACKGROUND: Mammographic breast density is a strong breast cancer risk factor but is not used in the clinical setting, partly because of a lack of standardization and automation. We developed an automated and objective measurement of the grayscale value variation within a mammogram, evaluated its association with breast cancer, and compared its performance with that of percent density (PD). METHODS: Three clinic-based studies were included: a case-cohort study of 217 breast cancer case subjects and 2094 non-case subjects and two case-control studies comprising 928 case subjects and 1039 control subjects and 246 case subjects and 516 control subjects, respectively. Percent density was estimated from digitized mammograms using the computer-assisted Cumulus thresholding program, and variation was estimated from an automated algorithm. We estimated hazards ratios (HRs), odds ratios (ORs), the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using Cox proportional hazards models for the cohort and logistic regression for case-control studies, with adjustment for age and body mass index. We performed a meta-analysis using random study effects to obtain pooled estimates of the associations between the two mammographic measures and breast cancer. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: The variation measure was statistically significantly associated with the risk of breast cancer in all three studies (highest vs lowest quartile: HR = 2.0 [95% CI = 1.3 to 3.1]; OR = 2.7 [95% CI = 2.1 to 3.6]; OR = 2.4 [95% CI = 1.4 to 3.9]; [corrected] all P (trend) < .001). [corrected]. The risk estimates and AUCs for the variation measure were similar to [corrected] those for percent density (AUCs for variation = 0.60-0.62 and [corrected] AUCs for percent density = 0.61-0.65). [corrected]. A meta-analysis of the three studies demonstrated similar associations [corrected] between variation and breast cancer (highest vs lowest quartile: RR = 1.8, 95% CI = 1.4 to 2.3) and [corrected] percent density and breast cancer (highest vs lowest quartile: RR = 2.3, 95% CI = 1.9 to 2.9). CONCLUSION: The association between the automated variation measure and the risk of breast cancer is at least as strong as that for percent density. Efforts to further evaluate and translate the variation measure to the clinical setting are warranted.
BACKGROUND: Mammographic breast density is a strong breast cancer risk factor but is not used in the clinical setting, partly because of a lack of standardization and automation. We developed an automated and objective measurement of the grayscale value variation within a mammogram, evaluated its association with breast cancer, and compared its performance with that of percent density (PD). METHODS: Three clinic-based studies were included: a case-cohort study of 217 breast cancer case subjects and 2094 non-case subjects and two case-control studies comprising 928 case subjects and 1039 control subjects and 246 case subjects and 516 control subjects, respectively. Percent density was estimated from digitized mammograms using the computer-assisted Cumulus thresholding program, and variation was estimated from an automated algorithm. We estimated hazards ratios (HRs), odds ratios (ORs), the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using Cox proportional hazards models for the cohort and logistic regression for case-control studies, with adjustment for age and body mass index. We performed a meta-analysis using random study effects to obtain pooled estimates of the associations between the two mammographic measures and breast cancer. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: The variation measure was statistically significantly associated with the risk of breast cancer in all three studies (highest vs lowest quartile: HR = 2.0 [95% CI = 1.3 to 3.1]; OR = 2.7 [95% CI = 2.1 to 3.6]; OR = 2.4 [95% CI = 1.4 to 3.9]; [corrected] all P (trend) < .001). [corrected]. The risk estimates and AUCs for the variation measure were similar to [corrected] those for percent density (AUCs for variation = 0.60-0.62 and [corrected] AUCs for percent density = 0.61-0.65). [corrected]. A meta-analysis of the three studies demonstrated similar associations [corrected] between variation and breast cancer (highest vs lowest quartile: RR = 1.8, 95% CI = 1.4 to 2.3) and [corrected] percent density and breast cancer (highest vs lowest quartile: RR = 2.3, 95% CI = 1.9 to 2.9). CONCLUSION: The association between the automated variation measure and the risk of breast cancer is at least as strong as that for percent density. Efforts to further evaluate and translate the variation measure to the clinical setting are warranted.
Authors: Norman F Boyd; Lisa J Martin; Michael Bronskill; Martin J Yaffe; Neb Duric; Salomon Minkin Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2010-07-08 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Steven R Cummings; Jeffrey A Tice; Scott Bauer; Warren S Browner; Jack Cuzick; Elad Ziv; Victor Vogel; John Shepherd; Celine Vachon; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Karla Kerlikowske Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2009-03-10 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Xianshu Wang; Ellen L Goode; Zachary S Fredericksen; Robert A Vierkant; V Shane Pankratz; Wen Liu-Mares; David N Rider; Celine M Vachon; James R Cerhan; Janet E Olson; Fergus J Couch Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Norman Boyd; Lisa Martin; Anoma Gunasekara; Olga Melnichouk; Gord Maudsley; Chris Peressotti; Martin Yaffe; Salomon Minkin Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Armando Manduca; Michael J Carston; John J Heine; Christopher G Scott; V Shane Pankratz; Kathy R Brandt; Thomas A Sellers; Celine M Vachon; James R Cerhan Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2009-03-03 Impact factor: 4.254
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
Authors: Lusine Yaghjyan; Rulla M Tamimi; Kimberly A Bertrand; Christopher G Scott; Matthew R Jensen; V Shane Pankratz; Kathy Brandt; 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 Treat Date: 2017-06-17 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Celine M Vachon; V Shane Pankratz; Christopher G Scott; Lothar Haeberle; Elad Ziv; Matthew R Jensen; Kathleen R Brandt; Dana H Whaley; Janet E Olson; Katharina Heusinger; Carolin C Hack; Sebastian M Jud; Matthias W Beckmann; Ruediger Schulz-Wendtland; Jeffrey A Tice; Aaron D Norman; Julie M Cunningham; Kristen S Purrington; Douglas F Easton; Thomas A Sellers; Karla Kerlikowske; Peter A Fasching; Fergus J Couch Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2015-03-04 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Yanpeng Li; Patrick C Brennan; Warwick Lee; Carolyn Nickson; Mariusz W Pietrzyk; Elaine A Ryan Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 4.056