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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Strand, Fredrik, Humphreys, Keith, Cheddad, Abbas, Törnberg, Sven, Azavedo, Edward, Shepherd, John, Hall, Per, Czene, Kamila
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