Marta Cecilia Busana1, Bianca L De Stavola1, Ulla Sovio1,2, Jingmei Li3, Sue Moss4, Keith Humphreys3, Isabel dos-Santos-Silva5. 1. Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Cambridge, Box 223, Level 2, The Rosie Hospital, Robinson Way, Cambridge, CB2 0SW, UK. 3. Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Box 281, 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden. 4. Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK. 5. Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK. isabel.silva@lshtm.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Mammographic density (MD) varies throughout a woman's life. We compared the performance of a fully automated (ImageJ-based) method to the observer-dependent Cumulus approach in the assessment of within-woman changes in MD over time. METHODS:MD was assessed in annual pre-diagnostic films (from age 40 to early 50s) from 313 breast cancer cases and 452 matched controls using Cumulus (left medio-lateral oblique (MLO) readings) and the ImageJ-based method (mean left-right MLO readings). Linear mixed models were used to compare within-woman changes in MD among controls. Associations between individual-specific MD trajectories and breast cancer were examined using conditional logistic regression. RESULTS: The age-related trajectories predicted by Cumulus and the ImageJ-based method were similar for all MD measures, except that the ImageJ-based method yielded slightly higher (by 2.54%, 95% CI 2.07%, 3.00%) estimates for percent MD. For both methods, the yearly rate of change in percent MD was twice faster after menopause than before, and higher BMI was associated with lower mean percent MD, but not associated with rate of change. Both methods yielded similar associations of individual-specific MD trajectories with breast cancer risk. CONCLUSIONS: The ImageJ-based method is a valid fully automated alternative to Cumulus for measuring within-woman changes in MD in digitized films. The Age Trial is registered as an International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN24647151.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Mammographic density (MD) varies throughout a woman's life. We compared the performance of a fully automated (ImageJ-based) method to the observer-dependent Cumulus approach in the assessment of within-woman changes in MD over time. METHODS: MD was assessed in annual pre-diagnostic films (from age 40 to early 50s) from 313 breast cancer cases and 452 matched controls using Cumulus (left medio-lateral oblique (MLO) readings) and the ImageJ-based method (mean left-right MLO readings). Linear mixed models were used to compare within-woman changes in MD among controls. Associations between individual-specific MD trajectories and breast cancer were examined using conditional logistic regression. RESULTS: The age-related trajectories predicted by Cumulus and the ImageJ-based method were similar for all MD measures, except that the ImageJ-based method yielded slightly higher (by 2.54%, 95% CI 2.07%, 3.00%) estimates for percent MD. For both methods, the yearly rate of change in percent MD was twice faster after menopause than before, and higher BMI was associated with lower mean percent MD, but not associated with rate of change. Both methods yielded similar associations of individual-specific MD trajectories with breast cancer risk. CONCLUSIONS: The ImageJ-based method is a valid fully automated alternative to Cumulus for measuring within-woman changes in MD in digitized films. The Age Trial is registered as an International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN24647151.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Breast density; Mammographic density; Pre-menopausal
Authors: Natalie J Engmann; Christopher Scott; Matthew R Jensen; Stacey J Winham; Lin Ma; Kathleen R Brandt; Amir Mahmoudzadeh; Dana H Whaley; Carrie B Hruska; Fang-Fang Wu; Aaron D Norman; Robert A Hiatt; John Heine; John Shepherd; V Shane Pankratz; Diana L Miglioretti; Karla Kerlikowske; Celine M Vachon Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2019-06-11 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Mia M Gaudet; Emily Deubler; W Ryan Diver; Samantha Puvanesarajah; Alpa V Patel; Ted Gansler; Mark E Sherman; Susan M Gapstur Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-01-04 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Anya Burton; Gertraud Maskarinec; Beatriz Perez-Gomez; Celine Vachon; Hui Miao; Martín Lajous; Ruy López-Ridaura; Megan Rice; Ana Pereira; Maria Luisa Garmendia; Rulla M Tamimi; Kimberly Bertrand; Ava Kwong; Giske Ursin; Eunjung Lee; Samera A Qureshi; Huiyan Ma; Sarah Vinnicombe; Sue Moss; Steve Allen; Rose Ndumia; Sudhir Vinayak; Soo-Hwang Teo; Shivaani Mariapun; Farhana Fadzli; Beata Peplonska; Agnieszka Bukowska; Chisato Nagata; Jennifer Stone; John Hopper; Graham Giles; Vahit Ozmen; Mustafa Erkin Aribal; Joachim Schüz; Carla H Van Gils; Johanna O P Wanders; Reza Sirous; Mehri Sirous; John Hipwell; Jisun Kim; Jong Won Lee; Caroline Dickens; Mikael Hartman; Kee-Seng Chia; Christopher Scott; Anna M Chiarelli; Linda Linton; Marina Pollan; Anath Arzee Flugelman; Dorria Salem; Rasha Kamal; Norman Boyd; Isabel Dos-Santos-Silva; Valerie McCormack Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2017-06-30 Impact factor: 11.069