Literature DB >> 34059687

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

Erica T Warner1, Megan S Rice2,3, Oana A Zeleznik3, Erin E Fowler4, Divya Murthy3, Celine M Vachon5, Kimberly A Bertrand6, Bernard A Rosner3, John Heine4, Rulla M Tamimi3,7,8.   

Abstract

Percent mammographic density (PMD) is a strong breast cancer risk factor, however, other mammographic features, such as V, the standard deviation (SD) of pixel intensity, may be associated with risk. We assessed whether PMD, automated PMD (APD), and V, yielded independent associations with breast cancer risk. We included 1900 breast cancer cases and 3921 matched controls from the Nurses' Health Study (NHS) and the NHSII. Using digitized film mammograms, we estimated PMD using a computer-assisted thresholding technique. APD and V were determined using an automated computer algorithm. We used logistic regression to generate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Median time from mammogram to diagnosis was 4.1 years (interquartile range: 1.6-6.8 years). PMD (OR per SD:1.52, 95% CI: 1.42, 1.63), APD (OR per SD:1.32, 95% CI: 1.24, 1.41), and V (OR per SD:1.32, 95% CI: 1.24, 1.40) were positively associated with breast cancer risk. Associations for APD were attenuated but remained statistically significant after mutual adjustment for PMD or V. Women in the highest quartile of both APD and V (OR vs Q1/Q1: 2.49, 95% CI: 2.02, 3.06), or PMD and V (OR vs Q1/Q1: 3.57, 95% CI: 2.79, 4.58) had increased breast cancer risk. An automated method of PMD assessment is feasible and yields similar, but somewhat weaker, estimates to a manual measure. PMD, APD and V are each independently, positively associated with breast cancer risk. Women with dense breasts and greater texture variation are at the highest relative risk of breast cancer.

Entities:  

Year:  2021        PMID: 34059687     DOI: 10.1038/s41523-021-00272-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  NPJ Breast Cancer        ISSN: 2374-4677


  33 in total

Review 1.  Mammographic density as a marker of susceptibility to breast cancer: a hypothesis.

Authors:  N F Boyd; G A Lockwood; L J Martin; J W Byng; M J Yaffe; D L Tritchler
Journal:  IARC Sci Publ       Date:  2001

Review 2.  Mammographic densities as a marker of human breast cancer risk and their use in chemoprevention.

Authors:  N F Boyd; L J Martin; J Stone; C Greenberg; S Minkin; M J Yaffe
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 5.075

3.  A novel automated mammographic density measure and breast cancer risk.

Authors:  John J Heine; Christopher G Scott; Thomas A Sellers; Kathleen R Brandt; Daniel J Serie; Fang-Fang Wu; Marilyn J Morton; Beth A Schueler; Fergus J Couch; Janet E Olson; V Shane Pankratz; Celine M Vachon
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2012-07-03       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  Using multiscale texture and density features for near-term breast cancer risk analysis.

Authors:  Wenqing Sun; Tzu-Liang Bill Tseng; Wei Qian; Jianying Zhang; Edward C Saltzstein; Bin Zheng; Fleming Lure; Hui Yu; Shi Zhou
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Mammographic features and breast cancer risk: effects with time, age, and menopause status.

Authors:  C Byrne; C Schairer; J Wolfe; N Parekh; M Salane; L A Brinton; R Hoover; R Haile
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1995-11-01       Impact factor: 13.506

6.  Mammographic texture resemblance generalizes as an independent risk factor for breast cancer.

Authors:  Mads Nielsen; Celine M Vachon; Christopher G Scott; Konstantin Chernoff; Gopal Karemore; Nico Karssemeijer; Martin Lillholm; Morten A Karsdal
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2014-04-08       Impact factor: 6.466

7.  Mammographic texture and risk of breast cancer by tumor type and estrogen receptor status.

Authors:  Serghei Malkov; John A Shepherd; Christopher G Scott; Rulla M Tamimi; Lin Ma; Kimberly A Bertrand; Fergus Couch; Matthew R Jensen; Amir P Mahmoudzadeh; Bo Fan; Aaron Norman; Kathleen R Brandt; V Shane Pankratz; Celine M Vachon; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2016-12-06       Impact factor: 6.466

8.  A novel and fully automated mammographic texture analysis for risk prediction: results from two case-control studies.

Authors:  Chao Wang; Adam R Brentnall; Jack Cuzick; Elaine F Harkness; D Gareth Evans; Susan Astley
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2017-10-18       Impact factor: 6.466

Review 9.  Beyond breast density: a review on the advancing role of parenchymal texture analysis in breast cancer risk assessment.

Authors:  Aimilia Gastounioti; Emily F Conant; Despina Kontos
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2016-09-20       Impact factor: 6.466

10.  The combined effect of mammographic texture and density on breast cancer risk: a cohort study.

Authors:  Johanna O P Wanders; Carla H van Gils; Nico Karssemeijer; Katharina Holland; Michiel Kallenberg; Petra H M Peeters; Mads Nielsen; Martin Lillholm
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2018-05-02       Impact factor: 6.466

View more
  2 in total

1.  Associations of Oral Contraceptives with Mammographic Breast Density in Premenopausal Women.

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

2.  Tissue density in the progression of breast cancer: Bedside to bench and back again.

Authors:  Emily Fabiano; Jian Zhang; Cynthia A Reinhart-King
Journal:  Curr Opin Biomed Eng       Date:  2022-03-28
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.