Sue M Hudson1, Louise S Wilkinson2, Bianca L De Stavola3, Isabel Dos-Santos-Silva1. 1. Department of Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT, UK. 2. Oxford Breast Imaging Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK. 3. Faculty of Pop Health Sciences, Institute of Child Health, University College London, London, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the associations between automated volumetric estimates of mammographic asymmetry and breast cancers detected at the same ("contemporaneous") screen, at subsequent screens, or in between (interval cancers). METHODS: Automated measurements from mammographic images (N = 79,731) were used to estimate absolute asymmetry in breast volume (BV) and dense volume (DV) in a large ethnically diverse population of attendees of a UK breast screening programme. Logistic regression models were fitted to assess asymmetry associations with the odds of a breast cancer detected at contemporaneous screen (767 cases), adjusted for relevant confounders.Nested case-control investigations were designed to examine associations between asymmetry and the odds of: (a) interval cancer (numbers of cases/age-matched controls: 153/646) and (b) subsequent screen-detected cancer (345/1438), via conditional logistic regression. RESULTS: DV, but not BV, asymmetry was positively associated with the odds of contemporaneous breast cancer (P-for-linear-trend (Pt) = 0.018). This association was stronger for first (prevalent) screens (Pt = 0.012). Both DV and BV asymmetry were positively associated with the odds of an interval cancer diagnosis (Pt = 0.060 and 0.030, respectively). Neither BV nor DV asymmetry were associated with the odds of having a subsequent screen-detected cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Increased DV asymmetry was associated with the risk of a breast cancer diagnosis at a contemporaneous screen or as an interval cancer. BV asymmetry was positively associated with the risk of an interval cancer diagnosis. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The findings suggest that DV and BV asymmetry may provide additional signals for detecting contemporaneous cancers and assessing the likelihood of interval cancers in population-based screening programmes.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the associations between automated volumetric estimates of mammographic asymmetry and breast cancers detected at the same ("contemporaneous") screen, at subsequent screens, or in between (interval cancers). METHODS: Automated measurements from mammographic images (N = 79,731) were used to estimate absolute asymmetry in breast volume (BV) and dense volume (DV) in a large ethnically diverse population of attendees of a UK breast screening programme. Logistic regression models were fitted to assess asymmetry associations with the odds of a breast cancer detected at contemporaneous screen (767 cases), adjusted for relevant confounders.Nested case-control investigations were designed to examine associations between asymmetry and the odds of: (a) interval cancer (numbers of cases/age-matched controls: 153/646) and (b) subsequent screen-detected cancer (345/1438), via conditional logistic regression. RESULTS: DV, but not BV, asymmetry was positively associated with the odds of contemporaneous breast cancer (P-for-linear-trend (Pt) = 0.018). This association was stronger for first (prevalent) screens (Pt = 0.012). Both DV and BV asymmetry were positively associated with the odds of an interval cancer diagnosis (Pt = 0.060 and 0.030, respectively). Neither BV nor DV asymmetry were associated with the odds of having a subsequent screen-detected cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Increased DV asymmetry was associated with the risk of a breast cancer diagnosis at a contemporaneous screen or as an interval cancer. BV asymmetry was positively associated with the risk of an interval cancer diagnosis. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The findings suggest that DV and BV asymmetry may provide additional signals for detecting contemporaneous cancers and assessing the likelihood of interval cancers in population-based screening programmes.
Authors: Norman F Boyd; Helen Guo; Lisa J Martin; Limei Sun; Jennifer Stone; Eve Fishell; Roberta A Jong; Greg Hislop; Anna Chiarelli; Salomon Minkin; Martin J Yaffe Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-01-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Etta D Pisano; R Edward Hendrick; Martin J Yaffe; Janet K Baum; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Jean B Cormack; Lucy A Hanna; Emily F Conant; Laurie L Fajardo; Lawrence W Bassett; Carl J D'Orsi; Roberta A Jong; Murray Rebner; Anna N A Tosteson; Constantine A Gatsonis Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Nataliia Moshina; Sofie Sebuødegård; Christoph I Lee; Lars A Akslen; Kaitlyn M Tsuruda; Joann G Elmore; Solveig Hofvind Journal: Radiology Date: 2018-06-26 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Wenqing Sun; Bin Zheng; Fleming Lure; Teresa Wu; Jianying Zhang; Benjamin Y Wang; Edward C Saltzstein; Wei Qian Journal: Comput Med Imaging Graph Date: 2014-03-13 Impact factor: 4.790
Authors: Johanna O P Wanders; Katharina Holland; Nico Karssemeijer; Petra H M Peeters; Wouter B Veldhuis; Ritse M Mann; Carla H van Gils Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2017-06-05 Impact factor: 6.466