Screen-Film Mammographic Density and Breast Cancer Risk: A Comparison of the Volumetric Standard Mammogram Form and the Interactive Threshold Measurement Methods

被引:77
作者
Aitken, Zoe
McCormack, Valerie A. [2 ]
Highnam, Ralph P. [3 ]
Martin, Lisa [4 ]
Gunasekara, Anoma [5 ]
Melnichouk, Olga
Mawdsley, Gord [5 ]
Peressotti, Chris [5 ]
Yaffe, Martin [5 ]
Boyd, Norman F. [4 ]
Silva, Isabel dos Santos [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ London London Sch Hyg & Trop Med, Dept Epidemiol & Populat Hlth, Canc Res UK Epidemiol & Genet Grp, London WC1E 7HT, England
[2] IARC, Lyon, France
[3] Highnam Associates Ltd, Wellington, New Zealand
[4] Ontario Canc Inst, Campbell Family Inst Breast Canc Res, Toronto, ON M4X 1K9, Canada
[5] Sunnybrook Hlth Sci Ctr, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada
关键词
PARENCHYMAL PATTERNS; TISSUE COMPOSITION;
D O I
10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-09-1059
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Background: Mammographic density is a strong risk factor for breast cancer, usually measured by an area-based threshold method that dichotomizes the breast area on a mammogram into dense and nondense regions. Volumetric methods of breast density measurement, such as the fully automated standard mammogram form (SMF) method that estimates the volume of dense and total breast tissue, may provide a more accurate density measurement and improve risk prediction. Methods: In 2000-2003, a case-control study was conducted of 367 newly confirmed breast cancer cases and 661 age-matched breast cancer-free controls who underwent screen-film mammography at several centers in Toronto, Canada. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios of breast cancer associated with categories of mammographic density, measured with both the threshold and the SMF (version 2.2 beta) methods, adjusting for breast cancer risk factors. Results: Median percent density was higher in cases than in controls for the threshold method (31% versus 27%) but not for the SMF method. Higher correlations were observed between SMF and threshold measurements for breast volume/area (Spearman correlation coefficient = 0.95) than for percent density (0.68) or for absolute density (0.36). After adjustment for breast cancer risk factors, odds ratios of breast cancer in the highest compared with the lowest quintile of percent density were 2.19 (95% confidence interval, 1.28-3.72; P(t) < 0.01) for the threshold method and 1.27 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-2.04; P(t) = 0.32) for the SMF method. Conclusion: Threshold percent density is a stronger predictor of breast cancer risk than the SMF version 2.2 beta method in digitized images. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 19(2); 418-28. (c) 2010 AACR.
引用
收藏
页码:418 / 428
页数:11
相关论文
共 20 条
[11]   Breast cancer risk factors and a novel measure of volumetric breast density: cross-sectional study [J].
Jeffreys, M. ;
Warren, R. ;
Highnam, R. ;
Smith, G. Davey .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2008, 98 (01) :210-216
[12]   Initial experiences of using an automated volumetric measure of breast density: the standard mammogram form [J].
Jeffreys, M. ;
Warren, R. ;
Highnam, R. ;
Smith, G. Davey .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2006, 79 (941) :378-382
[13]   A calibration approach to glandular tissue composition estimation in digital mammography [J].
Kaufhold, J ;
Thomas, JA ;
Eberhard, JW ;
Galbo, CE ;
Trotter, DEG .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2002, 29 (08) :1867-1880
[14]   Comparison of a new and existing method of mammographic density measurement: Intramethod reliability and associations with known risk factors [J].
McCormack, Valerie A. ;
Highnam, Ralph ;
Perry, Nicholas ;
Silva, Isabel dos Santos .
CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION, 2007, 16 (06) :1148-1154
[15]   Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: A meta-analysis [J].
McCormack, Valerie A. ;
Silva, Isabel dos Santos .
CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION, 2006, 15 (06) :1159-1169
[16]   A volumetric method for estimation of breast density on digitized screen-film mammograms [J].
Pawluczyk, O ;
Augustine, BJ ;
Yaffe, MJ ;
Rico, D ;
Yang, JW ;
Mawdsley, GE ;
Boyd, NF .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2003, 30 (03) :352-364
[17]   Novel use of single X-ray absorptiometry for measuring breast density [J].
Shepherd, JA ;
Herve, L ;
Landau, J ;
Fan, B ;
Kerlikowske, K ;
Cummings, SR .
TECHNOLOGY IN CANCER RESEARCH & TREATMENT, 2005, 4 (02) :173-182
[18]   MAMMOGRAPHIC PARENCHYMAL PATTERNS - RISK INDICATOR FOR BREAST-CANCER [J].
TABAR, L ;
DEAN, PB .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1982, 247 (02) :185-189
[19]   Volumetric breast density estimation from full-field digital mammograms [J].
van Engeland, S ;
Snoeren, PR ;
Huisman, H ;
Boetes, C ;
Karssemeijer, N .
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MEDICAL IMAGING, 2006, 25 (03) :273-282
[20]   MAMMOGRAPHIC PARENCHYMAL PATTERNS AND QUANTITATIVE-EVALUATION OF MAMMOGRAPHIC DENSITIES - A CASE-CONTROL STUDY [J].
WOLFE, JN ;
SAFTLAS, AF ;
SALANE, M .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 1987, 148 (06) :1087-1092