Cargando…
Novel mammographic image features differentiate between interval and screen-detected breast cancer: a case-case study
BACKGROUND: Interval breast cancers are often diagnosed at a more advanced stage than screen-detected cancers. Our aim was to identify features in screening mammograms of the normal breast that would differentiate between future interval cancers and screen-detected cancers, and to understand how eac...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5053212/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27716311 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13058-016-0761-x |
_version_ | 1782458369723858944 |
---|---|
author | Strand, Fredrik Humphreys, Keith Cheddad, Abbas Törnberg, Sven Azavedo, Edward Shepherd, John Hall, Per Czene, Kamila |
author_facet | Strand, Fredrik Humphreys, Keith Cheddad, Abbas Törnberg, Sven Azavedo, Edward Shepherd, John Hall, Per Czene, Kamila |
author_sort | Strand, Fredrik |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Interval breast cancers are often diagnosed at a more advanced stage than screen-detected cancers. Our aim was to identify features in screening mammograms of the normal breast that would differentiate between future interval cancers and screen-detected cancers, and to understand how each feature affects tumor detectability. METHODS: From a population-based cohort of invasive breast cancer cases in Stockholm-Gotland, Sweden, diagnosed from 2001 to 2008, we analyzed the contralateral mammogram at the preceding negative screening of 394 interval cancer cases and 1009 screen-detected cancers. We examined 32 different image features in digitized film mammograms, based on three alternative dense area identification methods, by a set of logistic regression models adjusted for percent density with interval cancer versus screen-detected cancer as the outcome. Features were forward-selected into a multiple logistic regression model adjusted for mammographic percent density, age, BMI and use of hormone replacement therapy. The associations of the identified features were assessed also in a sample from an independent cohort. RESULTS: Two image features, ‘skewness of the intensity gradient’ and ‘eccentricity’, were associated with the risk of interval compared with screen-detected cancer. For the first feature, the per-standard deviation odds ratios were 1.32 (95 % CI: 1.12 to 1.56) and 1.21 (95 % CI: 1.04 to 1.41) in the primary and validation cohort respectively. For the second feature, they were 1.20 (95 % CI: 1.04 to 1.39) and 1.17 (95%CI: 0.98 to 1.39) respectively. The first feature was associated with the tumor size at screen detection, while the second feature was associated with the tumor size at interval detection. CONCLUSIONS: We identified two novel mammographic features in screening mammograms of the normal breast that differentiated between future interval cancers and screen-detected cancers. We present a starting point for further research into features beyond percent density that might be relevant for interval cancer, and suggest ways to use this information to improve screening. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13058-016-0761-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5053212 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-50532122016-10-18 Novel mammographic image features differentiate between interval and screen-detected breast cancer: a case-case study Strand, Fredrik Humphreys, Keith Cheddad, Abbas Törnberg, Sven Azavedo, Edward Shepherd, John Hall, Per Czene, Kamila Breast Cancer Res Research Article BACKGROUND: Interval breast cancers are often diagnosed at a more advanced stage than screen-detected cancers. Our aim was to identify features in screening mammograms of the normal breast that would differentiate between future interval cancers and screen-detected cancers, and to understand how each feature affects tumor detectability. METHODS: From a population-based cohort of invasive breast cancer cases in Stockholm-Gotland, Sweden, diagnosed from 2001 to 2008, we analyzed the contralateral mammogram at the preceding negative screening of 394 interval cancer cases and 1009 screen-detected cancers. We examined 32 different image features in digitized film mammograms, based on three alternative dense area identification methods, by a set of logistic regression models adjusted for percent density with interval cancer versus screen-detected cancer as the outcome. Features were forward-selected into a multiple logistic regression model adjusted for mammographic percent density, age, BMI and use of hormone replacement therapy. The associations of the identified features were assessed also in a sample from an independent cohort. RESULTS: Two image features, ‘skewness of the intensity gradient’ and ‘eccentricity’, were associated with the risk of interval compared with screen-detected cancer. For the first feature, the per-standard deviation odds ratios were 1.32 (95 % CI: 1.12 to 1.56) and 1.21 (95 % CI: 1.04 to 1.41) in the primary and validation cohort respectively. For the second feature, they were 1.20 (95 % CI: 1.04 to 1.39) and 1.17 (95%CI: 0.98 to 1.39) respectively. The first feature was associated with the tumor size at screen detection, while the second feature was associated with the tumor size at interval detection. CONCLUSIONS: We identified two novel mammographic features in screening mammograms of the normal breast that differentiated between future interval cancers and screen-detected cancers. We present a starting point for further research into features beyond percent density that might be relevant for interval cancer, and suggest ways to use this information to improve screening. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13058-016-0761-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2016-10-05 2016 /pmc/articles/PMC5053212/ /pubmed/27716311 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13058-016-0761-x Text en © The Author(s). 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Strand, Fredrik Humphreys, Keith Cheddad, Abbas Törnberg, Sven Azavedo, Edward Shepherd, John Hall, Per Czene, Kamila Novel mammographic image features differentiate between interval and screen-detected breast cancer: a case-case study |
title | Novel mammographic image features differentiate between interval and screen-detected breast cancer: a case-case study |
title_full | Novel mammographic image features differentiate between interval and screen-detected breast cancer: a case-case study |
title_fullStr | Novel mammographic image features differentiate between interval and screen-detected breast cancer: a case-case study |
title_full_unstemmed | Novel mammographic image features differentiate between interval and screen-detected breast cancer: a case-case study |
title_short | Novel mammographic image features differentiate between interval and screen-detected breast cancer: a case-case study |
title_sort | novel mammographic image features differentiate between interval and screen-detected breast cancer: a case-case study |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5053212/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27716311 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13058-016-0761-x |
work_keys_str_mv | AT strandfredrik novelmammographicimagefeaturesdifferentiatebetweenintervalandscreendetectedbreastcanceracasecasestudy AT humphreyskeith novelmammographicimagefeaturesdifferentiatebetweenintervalandscreendetectedbreastcanceracasecasestudy AT cheddadabbas novelmammographicimagefeaturesdifferentiatebetweenintervalandscreendetectedbreastcanceracasecasestudy AT tornbergsven novelmammographicimagefeaturesdifferentiatebetweenintervalandscreendetectedbreastcanceracasecasestudy AT azavedoedward novelmammographicimagefeaturesdifferentiatebetweenintervalandscreendetectedbreastcanceracasecasestudy AT shepherdjohn novelmammographicimagefeaturesdifferentiatebetweenintervalandscreendetectedbreastcanceracasecasestudy AT hallper novelmammographicimagefeaturesdifferentiatebetweenintervalandscreendetectedbreastcanceracasecasestudy AT czenekamila novelmammographicimagefeaturesdifferentiatebetweenintervalandscreendetectedbreastcanceracasecasestudy |