Megan S Rice1, Bernard A Rosner2, Rulla M Tamimi2,3. 1. Clinical and Translational Epidemiology Unit, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, Bartlett 9, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. mrice1@mgh.harvard.edu. 2. Channing Division of Network Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. 3. Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To develop a model to predict percent mammographic density (MD) using questionnaire data and mammograms from controls in the Nurses' Health Studies' nested breast cancer case-control studies. Further, we assessed the association between both measured and predicted percent MD and breast cancer risk. METHODS: Using data from 2,955 controls, we assessed several variables as potential predictors. We randomly divided our dataset into a training dataset (two-thirds of the dataset) and a testing dataset (one-third of the dataset). We used stepwise linear regression to identify the subset of variables that were most predictive. Next, we examined the correlation between measured and predicted percent MD in the testing dataset and computed the r 2 in the total dataset. We used logistic regression to examine the association between measured and predicted percent MD and breast cancer risk. RESULTS: In the training dataset, several variables were selected for inclusion, including age, body mass index, and parity, among others. In the testing dataset, the Spearman correlation coefficient between predicted and measured percent MD was 0.61. As the prediction model performed well in the testing dataset, we developed the final model in the total dataset. The final prediction model explained 41% of the variability in percent MD. Both measured and predicted percent MD were similarly associated with breast cancer risk adjusting for age, menopausal status, and hormone use (OR per five unit increase = 1.09 for both). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that predicted percent MD may be useful for research studies in which mammograms are unavailable.
PURPOSE: To develop a model to predict percent mammographic density (MD) using questionnaire data and mammograms from controls in the Nurses' Health Studies' nested breast cancer case-control studies. Further, we assessed the association between both measured and predicted percent MD and breast cancer risk. METHODS: Using data from 2,955 controls, we assessed several variables as potential predictors. We randomly divided our dataset into a training dataset (two-thirds of the dataset) and a testing dataset (one-third of the dataset). We used stepwise linear regression to identify the subset of variables that were most predictive. Next, we examined the correlation between measured and predicted percent MD in the testing dataset and computed the r 2 in the total dataset. We used logistic regression to examine the association between measured and predicted percent MD and breast cancer risk. RESULTS: In the training dataset, several variables were selected for inclusion, including age, body mass index, and parity, among others. In the testing dataset, the Spearman correlation coefficient between predicted and measured percent MD was 0.61. As the prediction model performed well in the testing dataset, we developed the final model in the total dataset. The final prediction model explained 41% of the variability in percent MD. Both measured and predicted percent MD were similarly associated with breast cancer risk adjusting for age, menopausal status, and hormone use (OR per five unit increase = 1.09 for both). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that predicted percent MD may be useful for research studies in which mammograms are unavailable.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Mammographic density; Prediction model
Authors: Lisa J Martin; Olga Melnichouk; Helen Guo; Anna M Chiarelli; T Gregory Hislop; Martin J Yaffe; Salomon Minkin; John L Hopper; Norman F Boyd Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Amy E Millen; Jean Wactawski-Wende; Mary Pettinger; Michal L Melamed; Frances A Tylavsky; Simin Liu; John Robbins; Andrea Z LaCroix; Meryl S LeBoff; Rebecca D Jackson Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2010-03-10 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Enju Liu; James B Meigs; Anastassios G Pittas; Christina D Economos; Nicola M McKeown; Sarah L Booth; Paul F Jacques Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2010-04-14 Impact factor: 7.045
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
Authors: Jeffrey A Tice; Steven R Cummings; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Laura Ichikawa; William E Barlow; Karla Kerlikowske Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2008-03-04 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Jane Warwick; Hanna Birke; Jennifer Stone; Ruth M L Warren; Elizabeth Pinney; Adam R Brentnall; Stephen W Duffy; Anthony Howell; Jack Cuzick Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2014-10-08 Impact factor: 6.466
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
Authors: Megan S Rice; Kimberly A Bertrand; Tyler J VanderWeele; Bernard A Rosner; Xiaomei Liao; Hans-Olov Adami; Rulla M Tamimi Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2016-09-21 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: Lusine Yaghjyan; Akemi Wijayabahu; A Heather Eliassen; Graham Colditz; Bernard Rosner; Rulla M Tamimi Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2020-05-31 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Hongjie Chen; Lusine Yaghjyan; Christopher Li; Ulrike Peters; Bernard Rosner; Sara Lindström; Rulla M Tamimi Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2021-01-04 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Lusine Yaghjyan; Carmen Smotherman; John Heine; Graham A Colditz; Bernard Rosner; Rulla M Tamimi Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2021-12-03 Impact factor: 4.090
Authors: Lusine Yaghjyan; Graham Colditz; Heather Eliassen; Bernard Rosner; Aleksandra Gasparova; Rulla M Tamimi Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2018-06-25 Impact factor: 2.506
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
Authors: Natalie C DuPre; Jaime E Hart; Kimberly A Bertrand; Peter Kraft; Francine Laden; Rulla M Tamimi Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2017-11-23 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: Hongjie Chen; Shaoqi Fan; Jennifer Stone; Deborah J Thompson; Julie Douglas; Shuai Li; Christopher Scott; Manjeet K Bolla; Qin Wang; Joe Dennis; Kyriaki Michailidou; Christopher Li; Ulrike Peters; John L Hopper; Melissa C Southey; Tu Nguyen-Dumont; Tuong L Nguyen; Peter A Fasching; Annika Behrens; Gemma Cadby; Rachel A Murphy; Kristan Aronson; Anthony Howell; Susan Astley; Fergus Couch; Janet Olson; Roger L Milne; Graham G Giles; Christopher A Haiman; Gertraud Maskarinec; Stacey Winham; Esther M John; Allison Kurian; Heather Eliassen; Irene Andrulis; D Gareth Evans; William G Newman; Per Hall; Kamila Czene; Anthony Swerdlow; Michael Jones; Marina Pollan; Pablo Fernandez-Navarro; Daniel S McConnell; Vessela N Kristensen; Joseph H Rothstein; Pei Wang; Laurel A Habel; Weiva Sieh; Alison M Dunning; Paul D P Pharoah; Douglas F Easton; Gretchen L Gierach; Rulla M Tamimi; Celine M Vachon; Sara Lindström Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2022-04-12 Impact factor: 6.466