Cargando…

Quantitative breast density analysis to predict interval and node-positive cancers in pursuit of improved screening protocols: a case–control study

BACKGROUND: This study investigates whether quantitative breast density (BD) serves as an imaging biomarker for more intensive breast cancer screening by predicting interval, and node-positive cancers. METHODS: This case–control study of 1204 women aged 47–73 includes 599 cancer cases (302 screen-de...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Burnside, Elizabeth S., Warren, Lucy M., Myles, Jonathan, Wilkinson, Louise S., Wallis, Matthew G., Patel, Mishal, Smith, Robert A., Young, Kenneth C., Massat, Nathalie J., Duffy, Stephen W.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8438060/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34168297
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41416-021-01466-y
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: This study investigates whether quantitative breast density (BD) serves as an imaging biomarker for more intensive breast cancer screening by predicting interval, and node-positive cancers. METHODS: This case–control study of 1204 women aged 47–73 includes 599 cancer cases (302 screen-detected, 297 interval; 239 node-positive, 360 node-negative) and 605 controls. Automated BD software calculated fibroglandular volume (FGV), volumetric breast density (VBD) and density grade (DG). A radiologist assessed BD using a visual analogue scale (VAS) from 0 to 100. Logistic regression and area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) determined whether BD could predict mode of detection (screen-detected or interval); node-negative cancers; node-positive cancers, and all cancers vs. controls. RESULTS: FGV, VBD, VAS, and DG all discriminated interval cancers (all p < 0.01) from controls. Only FGV-quartile discriminated screen-detected cancers (p < 0.01). Based on AUC, FGV discriminated all cancer types better than VBD or VAS. FGV showed a significantly greater discrimination of interval cancers, AUC = 0.65, than of screen-detected cancers, AUC = 0.61 (p < 0.01) as did VBD (0.63 and 0.53, respectively, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: FGV, VBD, VAS and DG discriminate interval cancers from controls, reflecting some masking risk. Only FGV discriminates screen-detected cancers perhaps adding a unique component of breast cancer risk.