Cargando…

Mammographic density defined by higher than conventional brightness thresholds better predicts breast cancer risk

Background: Mammographic density defined by the conventional pixel brightness threshold, and adjusted for age and body mass index (BMI), is a well-established risk factor for breast cancer. We asked if higher thresholds better separate women with and without breast cancer. Methods: We studied Austra...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nguyen, Tuong L, Aung, Ye K, Evans, Christopher F, Dite, Gillian S, Stone, Jennifer, MacInnis, Robert J, Dowty, James G, Bickerstaffe, Adrian, Aujard, Kelly, Rommens, Johanna M, Song, Yun-Mi, Sung, Joohon, Jenkins, Mark A, Southey, Melissa C, Giles, Graham G, Apicella, Carmel, Hopper, John L
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5837222/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28338721
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyw212
_version_ 1783304079925051392
author Nguyen, Tuong L
Aung, Ye K
Evans, Christopher F
Dite, Gillian S
Stone, Jennifer
MacInnis, Robert J
Dowty, James G
Bickerstaffe, Adrian
Aujard, Kelly
Rommens, Johanna M
Song, Yun-Mi
Sung, Joohon
Jenkins, Mark A
Southey, Melissa C
Giles, Graham G
Apicella, Carmel
Hopper, John L
author_facet Nguyen, Tuong L
Aung, Ye K
Evans, Christopher F
Dite, Gillian S
Stone, Jennifer
MacInnis, Robert J
Dowty, James G
Bickerstaffe, Adrian
Aujard, Kelly
Rommens, Johanna M
Song, Yun-Mi
Sung, Joohon
Jenkins, Mark A
Southey, Melissa C
Giles, Graham G
Apicella, Carmel
Hopper, John L
author_sort Nguyen, Tuong L
collection PubMed
description Background: Mammographic density defined by the conventional pixel brightness threshold, and adjusted for age and body mass index (BMI), is a well-established risk factor for breast cancer. We asked if higher thresholds better separate women with and without breast cancer. Methods: We studied Australian women, 354 with breast cancer over-sampled for early-onset and family history, and 944 unaffected controls frequency-matched for age at mammogram. We measured mammographic dense area and percent density using the CUMULUS software at the conventional threshold, which we call Cumulus, and at two increasingly higher thresholds, which we call Altocumulus and Cirrocumulus, respectively. All measures were Box–Cox transformed and adjusted for age and BMI. We estimated the odds per adjusted standard deviation (OPERA) using logistic regression and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results: Altocumulus and Cirrocumulus were correlated with Cumulus (r ∼ 0.8 and 0.6, respectively). For dense area, the OPERA was 1.62, 1.74 and 1.73 for Cumulus, Altocumulus and Cirrocumulus, respectively (all P < 0.001). After adjusting for Altocumulus and Cirrocumulus, Cumulus was not significant (P > 0.6). The OPERAs for percent density were less but gave similar findings. The mean of the standardized adjusted Altocumulus and Cirrocumulus dense area measures was the best predictor; OPERA = 1.87 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.64–2.14] and AUC = 0.68 (0.65–0.71). Conclusions: The areas of higher mammographically dense regions are associated with almost 30% stronger breast cancer risk gradient, explain the risk association of the conventional measure and might be more aetiologically important. This has substantial implications for clinical translation and molecular, genetic and epidemiological research.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5837222
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58372222018-03-09 Mammographic density defined by higher than conventional brightness thresholds better predicts breast cancer risk Nguyen, Tuong L Aung, Ye K Evans, Christopher F Dite, Gillian S Stone, Jennifer MacInnis, Robert J Dowty, James G Bickerstaffe, Adrian Aujard, Kelly Rommens, Johanna M Song, Yun-Mi Sung, Joohon Jenkins, Mark A Southey, Melissa C Giles, Graham G Apicella, Carmel Hopper, John L Int J Epidemiol Women’s Health Background: Mammographic density defined by the conventional pixel brightness threshold, and adjusted for age and body mass index (BMI), is a well-established risk factor for breast cancer. We asked if higher thresholds better separate women with and without breast cancer. Methods: We studied Australian women, 354 with breast cancer over-sampled for early-onset and family history, and 944 unaffected controls frequency-matched for age at mammogram. We measured mammographic dense area and percent density using the CUMULUS software at the conventional threshold, which we call Cumulus, and at two increasingly higher thresholds, which we call Altocumulus and Cirrocumulus, respectively. All measures were Box–Cox transformed and adjusted for age and BMI. We estimated the odds per adjusted standard deviation (OPERA) using logistic regression and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results: Altocumulus and Cirrocumulus were correlated with Cumulus (r ∼ 0.8 and 0.6, respectively). For dense area, the OPERA was 1.62, 1.74 and 1.73 for Cumulus, Altocumulus and Cirrocumulus, respectively (all P < 0.001). After adjusting for Altocumulus and Cirrocumulus, Cumulus was not significant (P > 0.6). The OPERAs for percent density were less but gave similar findings. The mean of the standardized adjusted Altocumulus and Cirrocumulus dense area measures was the best predictor; OPERA = 1.87 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.64–2.14] and AUC = 0.68 (0.65–0.71). Conclusions: The areas of higher mammographically dense regions are associated with almost 30% stronger breast cancer risk gradient, explain the risk association of the conventional measure and might be more aetiologically important. This has substantial implications for clinical translation and molecular, genetic and epidemiological research. Oxford University Press 2017-04 2016-10-08 /pmc/articles/PMC5837222/ /pubmed/28338721 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyw212 Text en © The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Epidemiological Association http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle Women’s Health
Nguyen, Tuong L
Aung, Ye K
Evans, Christopher F
Dite, Gillian S
Stone, Jennifer
MacInnis, Robert J
Dowty, James G
Bickerstaffe, Adrian
Aujard, Kelly
Rommens, Johanna M
Song, Yun-Mi
Sung, Joohon
Jenkins, Mark A
Southey, Melissa C
Giles, Graham G
Apicella, Carmel
Hopper, John L
Mammographic density defined by higher than conventional brightness thresholds better predicts breast cancer risk
title Mammographic density defined by higher than conventional brightness thresholds better predicts breast cancer risk
title_full Mammographic density defined by higher than conventional brightness thresholds better predicts breast cancer risk
title_fullStr Mammographic density defined by higher than conventional brightness thresholds better predicts breast cancer risk
title_full_unstemmed Mammographic density defined by higher than conventional brightness thresholds better predicts breast cancer risk
title_short Mammographic density defined by higher than conventional brightness thresholds better predicts breast cancer risk
title_sort mammographic density defined by higher than conventional brightness thresholds better predicts breast cancer risk
topic Women’s Health
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5837222/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28338721
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyw212
work_keys_str_mv AT nguyentuongl mammographicdensitydefinedbyhigherthanconventionalbrightnessthresholdsbetterpredictsbreastcancerrisk
AT aungyek mammographicdensitydefinedbyhigherthanconventionalbrightnessthresholdsbetterpredictsbreastcancerrisk
AT evanschristopherf mammographicdensitydefinedbyhigherthanconventionalbrightnessthresholdsbetterpredictsbreastcancerrisk
AT ditegillians mammographicdensitydefinedbyhigherthanconventionalbrightnessthresholdsbetterpredictsbreastcancerrisk
AT stonejennifer mammographicdensitydefinedbyhigherthanconventionalbrightnessthresholdsbetterpredictsbreastcancerrisk
AT macinnisrobertj mammographicdensitydefinedbyhigherthanconventionalbrightnessthresholdsbetterpredictsbreastcancerrisk
AT dowtyjamesg mammographicdensitydefinedbyhigherthanconventionalbrightnessthresholdsbetterpredictsbreastcancerrisk
AT bickerstaffeadrian mammographicdensitydefinedbyhigherthanconventionalbrightnessthresholdsbetterpredictsbreastcancerrisk
AT aujardkelly mammographicdensitydefinedbyhigherthanconventionalbrightnessthresholdsbetterpredictsbreastcancerrisk
AT rommensjohannam mammographicdensitydefinedbyhigherthanconventionalbrightnessthresholdsbetterpredictsbreastcancerrisk
AT songyunmi mammographicdensitydefinedbyhigherthanconventionalbrightnessthresholdsbetterpredictsbreastcancerrisk
AT sungjoohon mammographicdensitydefinedbyhigherthanconventionalbrightnessthresholdsbetterpredictsbreastcancerrisk
AT jenkinsmarka mammographicdensitydefinedbyhigherthanconventionalbrightnessthresholdsbetterpredictsbreastcancerrisk
AT southeymelissac mammographicdensitydefinedbyhigherthanconventionalbrightnessthresholdsbetterpredictsbreastcancerrisk
AT gilesgrahamg mammographicdensitydefinedbyhigherthanconventionalbrightnessthresholdsbetterpredictsbreastcancerrisk
AT apicellacarmel mammographicdensitydefinedbyhigherthanconventionalbrightnessthresholdsbetterpredictsbreastcancerrisk
AT hopperjohnl mammographicdensitydefinedbyhigherthanconventionalbrightnessthresholdsbetterpredictsbreastcancerrisk