Literature DB >> 27598536

Breast Cancer Risk and Mammographic Density Assessed with Semiautomated and Fully Automated Methods and BI-RADS.

Abra M Jeffers1, Weiva Sieh1, Jafi A Lipson1, Joseph H Rothstein1, Valerie McGuire1, Alice S Whittemore1, Daniel L Rubin1.   

Abstract

Purpose To compare three metrics of breast density on full-field digital mammographic (FFDM) images as predictors of future breast cancer risk. Materials and Methods This institutional review board-approved study included 125 women with invasive breast cancer and 274 age- and race-matched control subjects who underwent screening FFDM during 2004-2013 and provided informed consent. The percentage of density and dense area were assessed semiautomatically with software (Cumulus 4.0; University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada), and volumetric percentage of density and dense volume were assessed automatically with software (Volpara; Volpara Solutions, Wellington, New Zealand). Clinical Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) classifications of breast density were extracted from mammography reports. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated by using conditional logistic regression stratified according to age and race and adjusted for body mass index, parity, and menopausal status, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was computed. Results The adjusted odds ratios and 95% CIs for each standard deviation increment of the percentage of density, dense area, volumetric percentage of density, and dense volume were 1.61 (95% CI: 1.19, 2.19), 1.49 (95% CI: 1.15, 1.92), 1.54 (95% CI: 1.12, 2.10), and 1.41 (95% CI: 1.11, 1.80), respectively. Odds ratios for women with extremely dense breasts compared with those with scattered areas of fibroglandular density were 2.06 (95% CI: 0.85, 4.97) and 2.05 (95% CI: 0.90, 4.64) for BI-RADS and Volpara density classifications, respectively. Clinical BI-RADS was more accurate (AUC, 0.68; 95% CI: 0.63, 0.74) than Volpara (AUC, 0.64; 95% CI: 0.58, 0.70) and continuous measures of percentage of density (AUC, 0.66; 95% CI: 0.60, 0.72), dense area (AUC, 0.66; 95% CI: 0.60, 0.72), volumetric percentage of density (AUC, 0.64; 95% CI: 0.58, 0.70), and density volume (AUC, 0.65; 95% CI: 0.59, 0.71), although the AUC differences were not statistically significant. Conclusion Mammographic density on FFDM images was positively associated with breast cancer risk by using the computer assisted methods and BI-RADS. BI-RADS classification was as accurate as computer-assisted methods for discrimination of patients from control subjects. © RSNA, 2016.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27598536      PMCID: PMC5283867          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2016152062

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  22 in total

1.  The association of measured breast tissue characteristics with mammographic density and other risk factors for breast cancer.

Authors:  Tong Li; Limei Sun; Naomi Miller; Trudey Nicklee; Jennifer Woo; Lee Hulse-Smith; Ming-Sound Tsao; Rama Khokha; Lisa Martin; Norman Boyd
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 4.254

2.  Issues to consider in converting to digital mammography.

Authors:  Etta D Pisano; Margarita Zuley; Janet K Baum; Helga S Marques
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 2.303

Review 3.  Mammographic breast density as an intermediate phenotype for breast cancer.

Authors:  Norman F Boyd; Johanna M Rommens; Kelly Vogt; Vivian Lee; John L Hopper; Martin J Yaffe; Andrew D Paterson
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 41.316

4.  Automated Percentage of Breast Density Measurements for Full-field Digital Mammography Applications.

Authors:  Erin E E Fowler; Celine M Vachon; Christopher G Scott; Thomas A Sellers; John J Heine
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 3.173

5.  Reader variability in breast density estimation from full-field digital mammograms: the effect of image postprocessing on relative and absolute measures.

Authors:  Brad M Keller; Diane L Nathan; Sara C Gavenonis; Jinbo Chen; Emily F Conant; Despina Kontos
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2013-03-05       Impact factor: 3.173

6.  Breast cancer risk prediction and individualised screening based on common genetic variation and breast density measurement.

Authors:  Hatef Darabi; Kamila Czene; Wanting Zhao; Jianjun Liu; Per Hall; Keith Humphreys
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2012-02-07       Impact factor: 6.466

7.  One statistical test is sufficient for assessing new predictive markers.

Authors:  Andrew J Vickers; Angel M Cronin; Colin B Begg
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2011-01-28       Impact factor: 4.615

8.  Digital mammographic density and breast cancer risk: a case-control study of six alternative density assessment methods.

Authors:  Amanda Eng; Zoe Gallant; John Shepherd; Valerie McCormack; Jingmei Li; Mitch Dowsett; Sarah Vinnicombe; Steve Allen; Isabel dos-Santos-Silva
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2014-09-20       Impact factor: 6.466

Review 9.  Mammographic density phenotypes and risk of breast cancer: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Andreas Pettersson; Rebecca E Graff; Giske Ursin; Isabel Dos Santos Silva; Valerie McCormack; Laura Baglietto; Celine Vachon; Marije F Bakker; Graham G Giles; Kee Seng Chia; Kamila Czene; Louise Eriksson; Per Hall; Mikael Hartman; Ruth M L Warren; Greg Hislop; Anna M Chiarelli; John L Hopper; Kavitha Krishnan; Jingmei Li; Qing Li; Ian Pagano; Bernard A Rosner; Chia Siong Wong; Christopher Scott; Jennifer Stone; Gertraud Maskarinec; Norman F Boyd; Carla H van Gils; Rulla M Tamimi
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2014-05-10       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 10.  Mammographic density. Measurement of mammographic density.

Authors:  Martin J Yaffe
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2008-06-19       Impact factor: 6.466

View more
  28 in total

1.  Automated mammographic breast density estimation using a fully convolutional network.

Authors:  Juhun Lee; Robert M Nishikawa
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2018-02-19       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Breast-density assessment with hand-held ultrasound: A novel biomarker to assess breast cancer risk and to tailor screening?

Authors:  Sergio J Sanabria; Orcun Goksel; Katharina Martini; Serafino Forte; Thomas Frauenfelder; Rahel A Kubik-Huch; Marga B Rominger
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-03-19       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  A new automated method to evaluate 2D mammographic breast density according to BI-RADS® Atlas Fifth Edition recommendations.

Authors:  Corinne Balleyguier; Julia Arfi-Rouche; Bruno Boyer; Emilien Gauthier; Valerie Helin; Ara Loshkajian; Stephane Ragusa; Suzette Delaloge
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-02-15       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Association of mammographic density measures and breast cancer "intrinsic" molecular subtypes.

Authors:  Geffen Kleinstern; Christopher G Scott; Rulla M Tamimi; Matthew R Jensen; V Shane Pankratz; Kimberly A Bertrand; Aaron D Norman; Daniel W Visscher; Fergus J Couch; Kathleen Brandt; John Shepherd; Fang-Fang Wu; Yunn-Yi Chen; Steven R Cummings; Stacey Winham; Karla Kerlikowske; Celine M Vachon
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2021-01-04       Impact factor: 4.872

5.  Association of contralateral breast cancer risk with mammographic density defined at higher-than-conventional intensity thresholds.

Authors:  Gordon P Watt; Julia A Knight; Tuong L Nguyen; Anne S Reiner; Kathleen E Malone; Esther M John; Charles F Lynch; Jennifer D Brooks; Meghan Woods; Xiaolin Liang; Leslie Bernstein; Malcolm C Pike; John L Hopper; Jonine L Bernstein
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2022-04-04       Impact factor: 7.316

Review 6.  Artificial Intelligence for Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Current Concepts and Future Perspectives.

Authors:  Krzysztof J Geras; Ritse M Mann; Linda Moy
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2019-09-24       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Automated and Clinical Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Density Measures Predict Risk for Screen-Detected and Interval Cancers: A Case-Control Study.

Authors:  Karla Kerlikowske; Christopher G Scott; Amir P Mahmoudzadeh; Lin Ma; Stacey Winham; Matthew R Jensen; Fang Fang Wu; Serghei Malkov; V Shane Pankratz; Steven R Cummings; John A Shepherd; Kathleen R Brandt; Diana L Miglioretti; Celine M Vachon
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2018-05-01       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  Automated percent mammographic density, mammographic texture variation, and risk of breast cancer: a nested case-control study.

Authors:  Erica T Warner; Megan S Rice; Oana A Zeleznik; Erin E Fowler; Divya Murthy; Celine M Vachon; Kimberly A Bertrand; Bernard A Rosner; John Heine; Rulla M Tamimi
Journal:  NPJ Breast Cancer       Date:  2021-05-31

Review 9.  Qualitative Versus Quantitative Mammographic Breast Density Assessment: Applications for the US and Abroad.

Authors:  Stamatia Destounis; Andrea Arieno; Renee Morgan; Christina Roberts; Ariane Chan
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2017-05-31

10.  The Feasibility of Classifying Breast Masses Using a Computer-Assisted Diagnosis (CAD) System Based on Ultrasound Elastography and BI-RADS Lexicon.

Authors:  Eduardo F C Fleury; Ana Claudia Gianini; Karem Marcomini; Vilmar Oliveira
Journal:  Technol Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2018-01-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.