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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |
_version_ | 1783752287845351424 |
---|---|
author | 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. |
author_facet | 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. |
author_sort | Burnside, Elizabeth S. |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8438060 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group UK |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-84380602021-10-04 Quantitative breast density analysis to predict interval and node-positive cancers in pursuit of improved screening protocols: a case–control study 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. Br J Cancer Article 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. Nature Publishing Group UK 2021-06-24 2021-09-14 /pmc/articles/PMC8438060/ /pubmed/34168297 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41416-021-01466-y Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as 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 images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Article 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. Quantitative breast density analysis to predict interval and node-positive cancers in pursuit of improved screening protocols: a case–control study |
title | Quantitative breast density analysis to predict interval and node-positive cancers in pursuit of improved screening protocols: a case–control study |
title_full | Quantitative breast density analysis to predict interval and node-positive cancers in pursuit of improved screening protocols: a case–control study |
title_fullStr | Quantitative breast density analysis to predict interval and node-positive cancers in pursuit of improved screening protocols: a case–control study |
title_full_unstemmed | Quantitative breast density analysis to predict interval and node-positive cancers in pursuit of improved screening protocols: a case–control study |
title_short | Quantitative breast density analysis to predict interval and node-positive cancers in pursuit of improved screening protocols: a case–control study |
title_sort | quantitative breast density analysis to predict interval and node-positive cancers in pursuit of improved screening protocols: a case–control study |
topic | Article |
url | 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 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT burnsideelizabeths quantitativebreastdensityanalysistopredictintervalandnodepositivecancersinpursuitofimprovedscreeningprotocolsacasecontrolstudy AT warrenlucym quantitativebreastdensityanalysistopredictintervalandnodepositivecancersinpursuitofimprovedscreeningprotocolsacasecontrolstudy AT mylesjonathan quantitativebreastdensityanalysistopredictintervalandnodepositivecancersinpursuitofimprovedscreeningprotocolsacasecontrolstudy AT wilkinsonlouises quantitativebreastdensityanalysistopredictintervalandnodepositivecancersinpursuitofimprovedscreeningprotocolsacasecontrolstudy AT wallismatthewg quantitativebreastdensityanalysistopredictintervalandnodepositivecancersinpursuitofimprovedscreeningprotocolsacasecontrolstudy AT patelmishal quantitativebreastdensityanalysistopredictintervalandnodepositivecancersinpursuitofimprovedscreeningprotocolsacasecontrolstudy AT smithroberta quantitativebreastdensityanalysistopredictintervalandnodepositivecancersinpursuitofimprovedscreeningprotocolsacasecontrolstudy AT youngkennethc quantitativebreastdensityanalysistopredictintervalandnodepositivecancersinpursuitofimprovedscreeningprotocolsacasecontrolstudy AT massatnathaliej quantitativebreastdensityanalysistopredictintervalandnodepositivecancersinpursuitofimprovedscreeningprotocolsacasecontrolstudy AT duffystephenw quantitativebreastdensityanalysistopredictintervalandnodepositivecancersinpursuitofimprovedscreeningprotocolsacasecontrolstudy |