Literature DB >> 24972955

Mammographic density is not a worthwhile examination to distinguish high cancer risk women in screening.

Catherine Colin1, Anne-Marie Schott, Pierre-Jean Valette.   

Abstract

Numerous studies established high mammographic density (MD) as a significant breast cancer risk. By adopting both radiological and epidemiological perspectives, we analysed the capacity of this radiological parameter to express an individual level of risk and the methods for assessing the relationship between MD categories and risk. MD is unable to identify individual underlying anatomical and physiological components. Many factors affect accurate and reproducible measurements and consequently classifications of MD. Significant relative risks were found by comparing the MD categories in the tails of distribution (i.e. the group of women with the lowest MD to that with the highest MD), which represent <10 % of women in each group: the majority of the population was ignored. When a relevant threshold of MD was applied to compare another group and the entire population was included to compare the two groups, some studies showed no significant or only moderate relative risk (RR) between women with readings above and those below the threshold. Sensitivity and specificity remain unknown. MD cannot be considered a worthwhile test by which to categorically identify high-risk women in screening. Key points • Unknown individual anatomical and physiological components do not express the risk level.• The epidemiological conditions are not relevant to distinguish a high-risk category.• The most relevant studies show no or moderate risks.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24972955     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-014-3278-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  39 in total

Review 1.  Clinical and epidemiological issues in mammographic density.

Authors:  Valentina Assi; Jane Warwick; Jack Cuzick; Stephen W Duffy
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-12-06       Impact factor: 66.675

2.  Categorizing breast mammographic density: intra- and interobserver reproducibility of BI-RADS density categories.

Authors:  S Ciatto; N Houssami; A Apruzzese; E Bassetti; B Brancato; F Carozzi; S Catarzi; M P Lamberini; G Marcelli; R Pellizzoni; B Pesce; G Risso; F Russo; A Scorsolini
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 4.380

3.  Body size, mammographic density, and breast cancer risk.

Authors:  Norman F Boyd; Lisa J Martin; Limei Sun; Helen Guo; Anna Chiarelli; Greg Hislop; Martin Yaffe; Salomon Minkin
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 4.254

4.  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

Review 5.  Can mammographic assessments lead to consider density as a risk factor for breast cancer?

Authors:  C Colin; V Prince; P J Valette
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2010-02-04       Impact factor: 3.528

6.  Mammographic breast density and subsequent risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women according to tumor characteristics.

Authors:  Lusine Yaghjyan; Graham A Colditz; Laura C Collins; Stuart J Schnitt; Bernard Rosner; Celine Vachon; Rulla M Tamimi
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2011-07-27       Impact factor: 13.506

7.  Breast size and mammographic pattern in relation to breast cancer risk.

Authors:  E Thurfjell; C C Hsieh; L Lipworth; A Ekbom; H O Adami; D Trichopoulos
Journal:  Eur J Cancer Prev       Date:  1996-02       Impact factor: 2.497

8.  Relationship between mammographic density and breast cancer death in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

Authors:  Gretchen L Gierach; Laura Ichikawa; Karla Kerlikowske; Louise A Brinton; Ghada N Farhat; Pamela M Vacek; Donald L Weaver; Catherine Schairer; Stephen H Taplin; Mark E Sherman
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2012-08-21       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  Mammographic parenchymal patterns and risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women.

Authors:  R I Horwitz; A M Lamas; D Peck
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  1984-10       Impact factor: 4.965

10.  'Hormonal' risk factors, 'breast tissue age' and the age-incidence of breast cancer.

Authors:  M C Pike; M D Krailo; B E Henderson; J T Casagrande; D G Hoel
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1983-06-30       Impact factor: 49.962

View more
  5 in total

1.  Mammographic density: Comparison of visual assessment with fully automatic calculation on a multivendor dataset.

Authors:  Daniela Sacchetto; Lia Morra; Silvano Agliozzo; Daniela Bernardi; Tomas Björklund; Beniamino Brancato; Patrizia Bravetti; Luca A Carbonaro; Loredana Correale; Carmen Fantò; Elisabetta Favettini; Laura Martincich; Luisella Milanesio; Sara Mombelloni; Francesco Monetti; Doralba Morrone; Marco Pellegrini; Barbara Pesce; Antonella Petrillo; Gianni Saguatti; Carmen Stevanin; Rubina M Trimboli; Paola Tuttobene; Marvi Valentini; Vincenzo Marra; Alfonso Frigerio; Alberto Bert; Francesco Sardanelli
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-05-01       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Association between breast cancer, breast density, and body adiposity evaluated by MRI.

Authors:  Wenlian Zhu; Peng Huang; Katarzyna J Macura; Dmitri Artemov
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-10-21       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Position paper on screening for breast cancer by the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) and 30 national breast radiology bodies from Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Israel, Lithuania, Moldova, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey.

Authors:  Francesco Sardanelli; Hildegunn S Aase; Marina Álvarez; Edward Azavedo; Henk J Baarslag; Corinne Balleyguier; Pascal A Baltzer; Vanesa Beslagic; Ulrich Bick; Dragana Bogdanovic-Stojanovic; Ruta Briediene; Boris Brkljacic; Julia Camps Herrero; Catherine Colin; Eleanor Cornford; Jan Danes; Gérard de Geer; Gul Esen; Andrew Evans; Michael H Fuchsjaeger; Fiona J Gilbert; Oswald Graf; Gormlaith Hargaden; Thomas H Helbich; Sylvia H Heywang-Köbrunner; Valentin Ivanov; Ásbjörn Jónsson; Christiane K Kuhl; Eugenia C Lisencu; Elzbieta Luczynska; Ritse M Mann; Jose C Marques; Laura Martincich; Margarete Mortier; Markus Müller-Schimpfle; Katalin Ormandi; Pietro Panizza; Federica Pediconi; Ruud M Pijnappel; Katja Pinker; Tarja Rissanen; Natalia Rotaru; Gianni Saguatti; Tamar Sella; Jana Slobodníková; Maret Talk; Patrice Taourel; Rubina M Trimboli; Ilse Vejborg; Athina Vourtsis; Gabor Forrai
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-11-02       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Multimodality Imaging of Breast Parenchymal Density and Correlation with Risk Assessment.

Authors:  Georg J Wengert; Thomas H Helbich; Doris Leithner; Elizabeth A Morris; Pascal A T Baltzer; Katja Pinker
Journal:  Curr Breast Cancer Rep       Date:  2019-01-17

5.  Density and tailored breast cancer screening: practice and prediction - an overview.

Authors:  Georg J Wengert; Thomas H Helbich; Panagiotis Kapetas; Pascal At Baltzer; Katja Pinker
Journal:  Acta Radiol Open       Date:  2018-09-17
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.