Literature DB >> 25139935

Comparison of mammographic density assessed as volumes and areas among women undergoing diagnostic image-guided breast biopsy.

Gretchen L Gierach1, Berta M Geller2, John A Shepherd3, Deesha A Patel4, Pamela M Vacek2, Donald L Weaver2, Rachael E Chicoine2, Ruth M Pfeiffer5, Bo Fan3, Amir Pasha Mahmoudzadeh3, Jeff Wang3, Jason M Johnson2, Sally D Herschorn2, Louise A Brinton4, Mark E Sherman6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Mammographic density (MD), the area of non-fatty-appearing tissue divided by total breast area, is a strong breast cancer risk factor. Most MD analyses have used visual categorizations or computer-assisted quantification, which ignore breast thickness. We explored MD volume and area, using a volumetric approach previously validated as predictive of breast cancer risk, in relation to risk factors among women undergoing breast biopsy.
METHODS: Among 413 primarily white women, ages 40 to 65 years, undergoing diagnostic breast biopsies between 2007 and 2010 at an academic facility in Vermont, MD volume (cm(3)) was quantified in craniocaudal views of the breast contralateral to the biopsy target using a density phantom, whereas MD area (cm(2)) was measured on the same digital mammograms using thresholding software. Risk factor associations with continuous MD measurements were evaluated using linear regression.
RESULTS: Percent MD volume and area were correlated (r = 0.81) and strongly and inversely associated with age, body mass index (BMI), and menopause. Both measures were inversely associated with smoking and positively associated with breast biopsy history. Absolute MD measures were correlated (r = 0.46) and inversely related to age and menopause. Whereas absolute dense area was inversely associated with BMI, absolute dense volume was positively associated.
CONCLUSIONS: Volume and area MD measures exhibit some overlap in risk factor associations, but divergence as well, particularly for BMI. IMPACT: Findings suggest that volume and area density measures differ in subsets of women; notably, among obese women, absolute density was higher with volumetric methods, suggesting that breast cancer risk assessments may vary for these techniques. ©2014 American Association for Cancer Research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25139935      PMCID: PMC4337788          DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-0257

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


  42 in total

1.  An appraisal of left and right breast cancer.

Authors:  L GARFINKEL; L CRAIG; H SEIDMAN
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1959-10       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  A first evaluation of breast radiological density assessment by QUANTRA software as compared to visual classification.

Authors:  Stefano Ciatto; Daniela Bernardi; Massimo Calabrese; Manuela Durando; Maria Adalgisa Gentilini; Giovanna Mariscotti; Francesco Monetti; Enrica Moriconi; Barbara Pesce; Antonella Roselli; Carmen Stevanin; Margherita Tapparelli; Nehmat Houssami
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2012-01-27       Impact factor: 4.380

3.  Volumetric breast density from full-field digital mammograms and its association with breast cancer risk factors: a comparison with a threshold method.

Authors:  Mariëtte Lokate; Michiel G J Kallenberg; Nico Karssemeijer; Maurice A A J Van den Bosch; Petra H M Peeters; Carla H Van Gils
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2010-10-04       Impact factor: 4.254

4.  Predicting biopsy outcome after mammography: what is the likelihood the patient has invasive or in situ breast cancer?

Authors:  Donald L Weaver; Pamela M Vacek; Joan M Skelly; Berta M Geller
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2005-06-22       Impact factor: 5.344

5.  Volume of mammographic density and risk of breast cancer.

Authors:  John A Shepherd; Karla Kerlikowske; Lin Ma; Frederick Duewer; Bo Fan; Jeff Wang; Serghei Malkov; Eric Vittinghoff; Steven R Cummings
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2011-05-24       Impact factor: 4.254

6.  Localized fibroglandular tissue as a predictor of future tumor location within the breast.

Authors:  Snehal M Pinto Pereira; Valerie A McCormack; John H Hipwell; Carol Record; Louise S Wilkinson; Sue M Moss; David J Hawkes; Isabel dos-Santos-Silva
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2011-06-21       Impact factor: 4.254

7.  Mammographic density and breast cancer risk: evaluation of a novel method of measuring breast tissue volumes.

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

Review 8.  Mammographic density. Potential mechanisms of breast cancer risk associated with mammographic density: hypotheses based on epidemiological evidence.

Authors:  Lisa J Martin; Norman F Boyd
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2008-01-09       Impact factor: 6.466

9.  Agreement of mammographic measures of volumetric breast density to MRI.

Authors:  Jeff Wang; Ania Azziz; Bo Fan; Serghei Malkov; Catherine Klifa; David Newitt; Silaja Yitta; Nola Hylton; Karla Kerlikowske; John A Shepherd
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-12-04       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Comparison of a new and existing method of mammographic density measurement: intramethod reliability and associations with known risk factors.

Authors:  Valerie A McCormack; Ralph Highnam; Nicholas Perry; Isabel dos Santos Silva
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 4.254

View more
  18 in total

1.  The effect of change in body mass index on volumetric measures of mammographic density.

Authors:  Vicki Hart; Katherine W Reeves; Susan R Sturgeon; Nicholas G Reich; Lynnette Leidy Sievert; Karla Kerlikowske; Lin Ma; John Shepherd; Jeffrey A Tice; Amir Pasha Mahmoudzadeh; Serghei Malkov; Brian L Sprague
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2015-08-27       Impact factor: 4.254

2.  Current and Future Methods for Measuring Breast Density: A Brief Comparative Review.

Authors:  Mark A Sak; Peter J Littrup; Neb Duric; Maeve Mullooly; Mark E Sherman; Gretchen L Gierach
Journal:  Breast Cancer Manag       Date:  2015-08-28

3.  Association between breast cancer genetic susceptibility variants and terminal duct lobular unit involution of the breast.

Authors:  Gretchen L Gierach; Jonine D Figueroa; Clara Bodelon; Hannah Oh; Nilanjan Chatterjee; Montserrat Garcia-Closas; Maya Palakal; Mark E Sherman; Ruth M Pfeiffer; Berta Geller; Pamela Vacek; Donald L Weaver; Rachael Chicoine; Daphne Papathomas; Jackie Xiang; Deesha A Patel; Zeina G Khodr; Laura Linville; Susan E Clare; Daniel W Visscher; Carolyn Mies; Stephen M Hewitt; Louise A Brinton; Anna Maria V Storniolo; Chunyan He; Stephen J Chanock
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2016-11-18       Impact factor: 7.396

4.  Using Digital Pathology to Understand Epithelial Characteristics of Benign Breast Disease among Women Undergoing Diagnostic Image-Guided Breast Biopsy.

Authors:  Maeve Mullooly; Samantha Puvanesarajah; Mark E Sherman; Melissa A Troester; Gretchen L Gierach; Shaoqi Fan; Ruth M Pfeiffer; Linnea T Olsson; Manila Hada; Erin L Kirk; Pamela M Vacek; Donald L Weaver; John Shepherd; Amir Mahmoudzadeh; Jeff Wang; Serghei Malkov; Jason M Johnson; Stephen M Hewitt; Sally D Herschorn
Journal:  Cancer Prev Res (Phila)       Date:  2019-10-23

5.  DEEP LEARNING-BASED ASSESSMENT OF TUMOR-ASSOCIATED STROMA FOR DIAGNOSING BREAST CANCER IN HISTOPATHOLOGY IMAGES.

Authors:  Babak Ehteshami Bejnordi; Jimmy Lin; Ben Glass; Maeve Mullooly; Gretchen L Gierach; Mark E Sherman; Nico Karssemeijer; Jeroen van der Laak; Andrew H Beck
Journal:  Proc IEEE Int Symp Biomed Imaging       Date:  2017-06-19

6.  Relation of Serum Estrogen Metabolites with Terminal Duct Lobular Unit Involution Among Women Undergoing Diagnostic Image-Guided Breast Biopsy.

Authors:  Hannah Oh; Zeina G Khodr; Mark E Sherman; Maya Palakal; Ruth M Pfeiffer; Laura Linville; Berta M Geller; Pamela M Vacek; Donald L Weaver; Rachael E Chicoine; Roni T Falk; Hisani N Horne; Daphne Papathomas; Deesha A Patel; Jackie Xiang; Xia Xu; Timothy Veenstra; Stephen M Hewitt; John A Shepherd; Louise A Brinton; Jonine D Figueroa; Gretchen L Gierach
Journal:  Horm Cancer       Date:  2016-05-02       Impact factor: 3.869

7.  Ages at menarche- and menopause-related genetic variants in relation to terminal duct lobular unit involution in normal breast tissue.

Authors:  Hannah Oh; Clara Bodelon; Maya Palakal; Nilanjan Chatterjee; Mark E Sherman; Laura Linville; Berta M Geller; Pamela M Vacek; Donald L Weaver; Rachael E Chicoine; Daphne Papathomas; Deesha A Patel; Jackie Xiang; Susan E Clare; Daniel W Visscher; Carolyn Mies; Stephen M Hewitt; Louise A Brinton; Anna Maria V Storniolo; Chunyan He; Montserrat Garcia-Closas; Stephen J Chanock; Gretchen L Gierach; Jonine D Figueroa
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2016-06-24       Impact factor: 4.872

8.  Relationship of serum estrogens and metabolites with area and volume mammographic densities.

Authors:  Gretchen L Gierach; Deesha A Patel; Roni T Falk; Ruth M Pfeiffer; Berta M Geller; Pamela M Vacek; Donald L Weaver; Rachael E Chicoine; John A Shepherd; Amir Pasha Mahmoudzadeh; Jeff Wang; Bo Fan; Sally D Herschorn; Xia Xu; Timothy Veenstra; Barbara Fuhrman; Mark E Sherman; Louise A Brinton
Journal:  Horm Cancer       Date:  2015-03-11       Impact factor: 3.869

9.  Relationship of Terminal Duct Lobular Unit Involution of the Breast with Area and Volume Mammographic Densities.

Authors:  Gretchen L Gierach; Deesha A Patel; Ruth M Pfeiffer; Jonine D Figueroa; Laura Linville; Daphne Papathomas; Jason M Johnson; Rachael E Chicoine; Sally D Herschorn; John A Shepherd; Jeff Wang; Serghei Malkov; Pamela M Vacek; Donald L Weaver; Bo Fan; Amir Pasha Mahmoudzadeh; Maya Palakal; Jackie Xiang; Hannah Oh; Hisani N Horne; Brian L Sprague; Stephen M Hewitt; Louise A Brinton; Mark E Sherman
Journal:  Cancer Prev Res (Phila)       Date:  2015-12-08

10.  The effect of weight change on changes in breast density measures over menopause in a breast cancer screening cohort.

Authors:  Johanna Olga Pauline Wanders; Marije Fokje Bakker; Wouter Bernard Veldhuis; Petra Huberdina Maria Peeters; Carla Henrica van Gils
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2015-05-30       Impact factor: 6.466

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.