Cargando…
Predicting interval and screen-detected breast cancers from mammographic density defined by different brightness thresholds
BACKGROUND: Case–control studies show that mammographic density is a better risk factor when defined at higher than conventional pixel-brightness thresholds. We asked if this applied to interval and/or screen-detected cancers. METHOD: We conducted a nested case–control study within the prospective M...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6293866/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30545395 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13058-018-1081-0 |
_version_ | 1783380632815009792 |
---|---|
author | Nguyen, Tuong L. Aung, Ye K. Li, Shuai Trinh, Nhut Ho Evans, Christopher F. Baglietto, Laura Krishnan, Kavitha Dite, Gillian S. Stone, Jennifer English, Dallas R. Song, Yun-Mi Sung, Joohon Jenkins, Mark A. Southey, Melissa C. Giles, Graham G. Hopper, John L. |
author_facet | Nguyen, Tuong L. Aung, Ye K. Li, Shuai Trinh, Nhut Ho Evans, Christopher F. Baglietto, Laura Krishnan, Kavitha Dite, Gillian S. Stone, Jennifer English, Dallas R. Song, Yun-Mi Sung, Joohon Jenkins, Mark A. Southey, Melissa C. Giles, Graham G. Hopper, John L. |
author_sort | Nguyen, Tuong L. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Case–control studies show that mammographic density is a better risk factor when defined at higher than conventional pixel-brightness thresholds. We asked if this applied to interval and/or screen-detected cancers. METHOD: We conducted a nested case–control study within the prospective Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study including 168 women with interval and 422 with screen-detected breast cancers, and 498 and 1197 matched controls, respectively. We measured absolute and percent mammographic density using the Cumulus software at the conventional threshold (Cumulus) and two increasingly higher thresholds (Altocumulus and Cirrocumulus, respectively). Measures were transformed and adjusted for age and body mass index (BMI). Using conditional logistic regression and adjusting for BMI by age at mammogram, we estimated risk discrimination by the odds ratio per adjusted standard deviation (OPERA), calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and compared nested models using the likelihood ratio criterion and models with the same number of parameters using the difference in Bayesian information criterion (ΔBIC). RESULTS: For interval cancer, there was very strong evidence that the association was best predicted by Cumulus as a percentage (OPERA = 2.33 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.85–2.92); all ΔBIC > 14), and the association with BMI was independent of age at mammogram. After adjusting for percent Cumulus, no other measure was associated with risk (all P > 0.1). For screen-detected cancer, however, the associations were strongest for the absolute and percent Cirrocumulus measures (all ΔBIC > 6), and after adjusting for Cirrocumulus, no other measure was associated with risk (all P > 0.07). CONCLUSION: The amount of brighter areas is the best mammogram-based measure of screen-detected breast cancer risk, while the percentage of the breast covered by white or bright areas is the best mammogram-based measure of interval breast cancer risk, irrespective of BMI. Therefore, there are different features of mammographic images that give clinically important information about different outcomes. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13058-018-1081-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6293866 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-62938662018-12-18 Predicting interval and screen-detected breast cancers from mammographic density defined by different brightness thresholds Nguyen, Tuong L. Aung, Ye K. Li, Shuai Trinh, Nhut Ho Evans, Christopher F. Baglietto, Laura Krishnan, Kavitha Dite, Gillian S. Stone, Jennifer English, Dallas R. Song, Yun-Mi Sung, Joohon Jenkins, Mark A. Southey, Melissa C. Giles, Graham G. Hopper, John L. Breast Cancer Res Research Article BACKGROUND: Case–control studies show that mammographic density is a better risk factor when defined at higher than conventional pixel-brightness thresholds. We asked if this applied to interval and/or screen-detected cancers. METHOD: We conducted a nested case–control study within the prospective Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study including 168 women with interval and 422 with screen-detected breast cancers, and 498 and 1197 matched controls, respectively. We measured absolute and percent mammographic density using the Cumulus software at the conventional threshold (Cumulus) and two increasingly higher thresholds (Altocumulus and Cirrocumulus, respectively). Measures were transformed and adjusted for age and body mass index (BMI). Using conditional logistic regression and adjusting for BMI by age at mammogram, we estimated risk discrimination by the odds ratio per adjusted standard deviation (OPERA), calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and compared nested models using the likelihood ratio criterion and models with the same number of parameters using the difference in Bayesian information criterion (ΔBIC). RESULTS: For interval cancer, there was very strong evidence that the association was best predicted by Cumulus as a percentage (OPERA = 2.33 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.85–2.92); all ΔBIC > 14), and the association with BMI was independent of age at mammogram. After adjusting for percent Cumulus, no other measure was associated with risk (all P > 0.1). For screen-detected cancer, however, the associations were strongest for the absolute and percent Cirrocumulus measures (all ΔBIC > 6), and after adjusting for Cirrocumulus, no other measure was associated with risk (all P > 0.07). CONCLUSION: The amount of brighter areas is the best mammogram-based measure of screen-detected breast cancer risk, while the percentage of the breast covered by white or bright areas is the best mammogram-based measure of interval breast cancer risk, irrespective of BMI. Therefore, there are different features of mammographic images that give clinically important information about different outcomes. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13058-018-1081-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-12-13 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC6293866/ /pubmed/30545395 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13058-018-1081-0 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 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 Nguyen, Tuong L. Aung, Ye K. Li, Shuai Trinh, Nhut Ho Evans, Christopher F. Baglietto, Laura Krishnan, Kavitha Dite, Gillian S. Stone, Jennifer English, Dallas R. Song, Yun-Mi Sung, Joohon Jenkins, Mark A. Southey, Melissa C. Giles, Graham G. Hopper, John L. Predicting interval and screen-detected breast cancers from mammographic density defined by different brightness thresholds |
title | Predicting interval and screen-detected breast cancers from mammographic density defined by different brightness thresholds |
title_full | Predicting interval and screen-detected breast cancers from mammographic density defined by different brightness thresholds |
title_fullStr | Predicting interval and screen-detected breast cancers from mammographic density defined by different brightness thresholds |
title_full_unstemmed | Predicting interval and screen-detected breast cancers from mammographic density defined by different brightness thresholds |
title_short | Predicting interval and screen-detected breast cancers from mammographic density defined by different brightness thresholds |
title_sort | predicting interval and screen-detected breast cancers from mammographic density defined by different brightness thresholds |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6293866/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30545395 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13058-018-1081-0 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT nguyentuongl predictingintervalandscreendetectedbreastcancersfrommammographicdensitydefinedbydifferentbrightnessthresholds AT aungyek predictingintervalandscreendetectedbreastcancersfrommammographicdensitydefinedbydifferentbrightnessthresholds AT lishuai predictingintervalandscreendetectedbreastcancersfrommammographicdensitydefinedbydifferentbrightnessthresholds AT trinhnhutho predictingintervalandscreendetectedbreastcancersfrommammographicdensitydefinedbydifferentbrightnessthresholds AT evanschristopherf predictingintervalandscreendetectedbreastcancersfrommammographicdensitydefinedbydifferentbrightnessthresholds AT bagliettolaura predictingintervalandscreendetectedbreastcancersfrommammographicdensitydefinedbydifferentbrightnessthresholds AT krishnankavitha predictingintervalandscreendetectedbreastcancersfrommammographicdensitydefinedbydifferentbrightnessthresholds AT ditegillians predictingintervalandscreendetectedbreastcancersfrommammographicdensitydefinedbydifferentbrightnessthresholds AT stonejennifer predictingintervalandscreendetectedbreastcancersfrommammographicdensitydefinedbydifferentbrightnessthresholds AT englishdallasr predictingintervalandscreendetectedbreastcancersfrommammographicdensitydefinedbydifferentbrightnessthresholds AT songyunmi predictingintervalandscreendetectedbreastcancersfrommammographicdensitydefinedbydifferentbrightnessthresholds AT sungjoohon predictingintervalandscreendetectedbreastcancersfrommammographicdensitydefinedbydifferentbrightnessthresholds AT jenkinsmarka predictingintervalandscreendetectedbreastcancersfrommammographicdensitydefinedbydifferentbrightnessthresholds AT southeymelissac predictingintervalandscreendetectedbreastcancersfrommammographicdensitydefinedbydifferentbrightnessthresholds AT gilesgrahamg predictingintervalandscreendetectedbreastcancersfrommammographicdensitydefinedbydifferentbrightnessthresholds AT hopperjohnl predictingintervalandscreendetectedbreastcancersfrommammographicdensitydefinedbydifferentbrightnessthresholds |