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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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.
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