Literature DB >> 29040039

Breast Cancer Risk Associations with Digital Mammographic Density by Pixel Brightness Threshold and Mammographic System.

Tuong L Nguyen1, Yoon-Ho Choi1, Ye K Aung1, Christopher F Evans1, Nhut H Trinh1, Shuai Li1, Gillian S Dite1, Myeong-Seong Kim1, Patrick C Brennan1, Mark A Jenkins1, Joohon Sung1, Yun-Mi Song1, John L Hopper1.   

Abstract

Purpose To compare three mammographic density measures defined by different pixel intensity thresholds as predictors of breast cancer risk for two different digital mammographic systems. Materials and Methods The Korean Breast Cancer Study included 398 women with invasive breast cancer and 737 control participants matched for age at mammography (±1 year), examination date, mammographic system, and menopausal status. Mammographic density was measured by using the automated Laboratory for Individualized Breast Radiodensity Assessment (LIBRA) software and the semiautomated Cumulus software at the conventional threshold (Cumulus) and at increasingly higher thresholds (Altocumulus and Cirrocumulus, respectively). Measures were Box-Cox-transformed and adjusted for age, body mass index, and menopausal status. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate risk associations. For calculation of measures of predictive value, the change in odds per standard deviation (OPERA) and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were used. Results For dense area, with use of the direct conversion system the OPERAs were 1.72 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.38, 2.15) for LIBRA, 1.58 (95% CI: 1.27, 1.97) for Cumulus, 2.04 (95% CI: 1.60, 2.59) for Altocumulus, and 3.48 (95% CI: 2.45, 4.47) for Cirrocumulus (P < .001). The corresponding AUCs were 0.70, 0.69, 0.76, and 0.89, respectively. With use of the indirect conversion system, the corresponding OPERAs were 1.50 (95% CI: 1.28, 1.76), 1.36 (95% CI: 1.16, 1.59), 1.40 (95% CI: 1.19, 1.64), and 1.47 (95% CI: 1.25, 1.73) (P < .001) and the AUCs were 0.64, 0.60, 0.61, and 0.63, respectively. Conclusion It is possible that mammographic density defined by higher pixel thresholds could capture more risk-predicting information with use of a direct conversion mammographic system; the mammographically bright, rather than white, regions are etiologically important. © RSNA, 2017.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29040039     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2017170306

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


  10 in total

1.  Fully Automated Volumetric Breast Density Estimation from Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Aimilia Gastounioti; Lauren Pantalone; Christopher G Scott; Eric A Cohen; Fang F Wu; Stacey J Winham; Matthew R Jensen; Andrew D A Maidment; Celine M Vachon; Emily F Conant; Despina Kontos
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2021-09-14       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Genetic Aspects of Mammographic Density Measures Associated with Breast Cancer Risk.

Authors:  Shuai Li; Tuong L Nguyen; Tu Nguyen-Dumont; James G Dowty; Gillian S Dite; Zhoufeng Ye; Ho N Trinh; Christopher F Evans; Maxine Tan; Joohon Sung; Mark A Jenkins; Graham G Giles; John L Hopper; Melissa C Southey
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-06-02       Impact factor: 6.575

3.  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

4.  Evaluation of LIBRA Software for Fully Automated Mammographic Density Assessment in Breast Cancer Risk Prediction.

Authors:  Aimilia Gastounioti; Christine Damases Kasi; Christopher G Scott; Kathleen R Brandt; Matthew R Jensen; Carrie B Hruska; Fang F Wu; Aaron D Norman; Emily F Conant; Stacey J Winham; Karla Kerlikowske; Despina Kontos; Celine M Vachon
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2020-05-12       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Exploring the prediction performance for breast cancer risk based on volumetric mammographic density at different thresholds.

Authors:  Chao Wang; Adam R Brentnall; Jack Cuzick; Elaine F Harkness; D Gareth Evans; Susan Astley
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2018-06-08       Impact factor: 6.466

6.  Interval breast cancer risk associations with breast density, family history and breast tissue aging.

Authors:  Tuong L Nguyen; Shuai Li; Gillian S Dite; Ye K Aung; Christopher F Evans; Ho N Trinh; Laura Baglietto; Jennifer Stone; Yun-Mi Song; Joohon Sung; Dallas R English; Mark A Jenkins; Pierre-Antoine Dugué; Roger L Milne; Melissa C Southey; Graham G Giles; Malcolm C Pike; John L Hopper
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2019-11-12       Impact factor: 7.396

7.  Predicting interval and screen-detected breast cancers from mammographic density defined by different brightness thresholds.

Authors:  Tuong L Nguyen; Ye K Aung; Shuai Li; Nhut Ho Trinh; Christopher F Evans; Laura Baglietto; Kavitha Krishnan; Gillian S Dite; Jennifer Stone; Dallas R English; Yun-Mi Song; Joohon Sung; Mark A Jenkins; Melissa C Southey; Graham G Giles; John L Hopper
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2018-12-13       Impact factor: 6.466

8.  Cirrus: An Automated Mammography-Based Measure of Breast Cancer Risk Based on Textural Features.

Authors:  Daniel F Schmidt; Enes Makalic; Benjamin Goudey; Gillian S Dite; Jennifer Stone; Tuong L Nguyen; James G Dowty; Laura Baglietto; Melissa C Southey; Gertraud Maskarinec; Graham G Giles; John L Hopper
Journal:  JNCI Cancer Spectr       Date:  2018-12-07

9.  Does breast density measured through population-based screening independently increase breast cancer risk in Asian females?

Authors:  Boyoung Park; Hye Mi Cho; Eun Hye Lee; Seunghoon Song; Mina Suh; Kui Son Choi; Bong Joo Kang; Kyungran Ko; Ann Yi; Hae Kyoung Jung; Joo Hee Cha; Jae Kwan Jun
Journal:  Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2017-12-28       Impact factor: 4.790

10.  Familial Aspects of Mammographic Density Measures Associated with Breast Cancer Risk.

Authors:  Tuong L Nguyen; Shuai Li; James G Dowty; Gillian S Dite; Zhoufeng Ye; Tu Nguyen-Dumont; Ho N Trinh; Christopher F Evans; Maxine Tan; Joohon Sung; Mark A Jenkins; Graham G Giles; Melissa C Southey; John L Hopper
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-03-14       Impact factor: 6.639

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.