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
_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