Automated analysis of mammographic densities and breast carcinoma risk

被引:0
|
作者
Byng, JW
Yaffe, MJ
Lockwood, GA
Little, LE
Tritchler, DL
Boyd, NF
机构
[1] SUNNYBROOK HLTH SCI CTR,DEPT MED BIOPHYS,TORONTO,ON M4N 3M5,CANADA
[2] UNIV TORONTO,TORONTO,ON,CANADA
[3] ONTARIO CANC INST,DIV EPIDEMIOL & STAT,TORONTO,ON M4X 1K9,CANADA
关键词
breast; breast carcinoma; mammography; risk;
D O I
10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19970701)80:1<66::AID-CNCR9>3.0.CO;2-D
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
BACKGROUND, There is considerable evidence that one of the strongest risk factors for breast carcinoma can be assessed from the mammographic appearance of the breast. However, the magnitude of the risk factor and the reliability of the prediction depend on the method of classification. Subjective classification requires specialized observer training and suffers from inter- and intraobserver variability. Furthermore, the categoric scales make it difficult to distinguish small differences in mammographic appearance. To address these limitations, automated analysis techniques that characterize mammographic density on a continuous scale have been considered, but as yet, these have been evaluated only for their ability to reproduce subjective classifications of mammographic parenchyma. METHODS, In this study, using a nested case-control design, the authors evaluated the direct association between breast carcinoma risk and quantitative image features derived from automated analysis of digitized film mammograms. Two parameters one describing the distribution of breast tissue density as reflected by brightness of the mammogram (regional skewness) and the other characterizing texture (fractal dimension), were calculated for images from 708 subjects identified from the Canadian National Breast Screening Study. RESULTS, These parameters were evaluated for their ability to distinguish cases (those women who developed breast carcinoma) from controls. It was found that both the skewness and fractal parameters were significantly related to risk of developing breast carcinoma. CONCLUSIONS, Although the relative risk estimates were moderate (typically greater than or equal to 2.0) and less than those from subjective classification or for an interactive computer method the authors have previously described, they are comparable to other risk factors for the disease. The observer independence and reproducibility of the automated methods may facilitate their more widespread use. (C) 1997 American Cancer Society.
引用
收藏
页码:66 / 74
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Versus Additional Diagnostic Mammographic Views for the Evaluation of Asymmetric Mammographic Densities
    Waheed, Hira
    Masroor, Imrana
    Afzal, Shaista
    Alvi, Muhammad
    Jahanzeb, Syed
    [J]. CUREUS JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, 2020, 12 (08)
  • [42] Mammographic density and breast cancer risk
    Boyd, NF
    [J]. BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT, 2004, 88 : S3 - S3
  • [43] Mammographic microcalcifications and risk of breast cancer
    Shadi Azam
    Mikael Eriksson
    Arvid Sjölander
    Marike Gabrielson
    Roxanna Hellgren
    Kamila Czene
    Per Hall
    [J]. British Journal of Cancer, 2021, 125 : 759 - 765
  • [44] Mammographic density and breast cancer risk
    van Gils, CH
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY AND REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY, 1999, 86 (02) : 127 - 128
  • [45] Mammographic density and risk of breast cancer
    Stone, J
    Hislop, G
    Fishell, EK
    Jong, RA
    Minkin, S
    Martin, L
    Yaffe, MJ
    Boyd, NF
    [J]. CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION, 2002, 11 (10) : 1225S - 1225S
  • [46] Mammographic microcalcifications and risk of breast cancer
    Azam, Shadi
    Eriksson, Mikael
    Sjolander, Arvid
    Gabrielson, Marike
    Hellgren, Roxanna
    Czene, Kamila
    Hall, Per
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2021, 125 (05) : 759 - 765
  • [47] Evaluation of LIBRA Software for Fully Automated Mammographic Density Assessment in Breast Cancer Risk Prediction
    Gastounioti, Aimilia
    Kasi, Christine Damases
    Scott, Christopher G.
    Brandt, Kathleen R.
    Jensen, Matthew R.
    Hruska, Carrie B.
    Wu, Fang F.
    Norman, Aaron D.
    Conant, Emily F.
    Winham, Stacey J.
    Kerlikowske, Karla
    Kontos, Despina
    Vachon, Celine M.
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2020, 296 (01) : 24 - 31
  • [48] Mammographic breast density and the risk of breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Bodewes, F. T. H.
    van Asselt, A. A.
    Dorrius, M. D.
    Greuter, M. J. W.
    de Bock, G. H.
    [J]. BREAST, 2022, 66 : 62 - 68
  • [49] Genetic and Environmental Causes of Variation in an Automated Breast Cancer Risk Factor Based on Mammographic Textures
    Ye, Zhoufeng
    Dite, Gillian S.
    Nguyen, Tuong L.
    Macinnis, Robert J.
    Schmidt, Daniel F.
    Makalic, Enes
    Al-Qershi, Osamah M.
    Nguyen-Dumont, Tu
    Goudey, Benjamin
    Stone, Jennifer
    Dowty, James G.
    Giles, Graham G.
    Southey, Melissa C.
    Hopper, John L.
    Li, Shuai
    [J]. CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION, 2024, 33 (02) : 306 - 313
  • [50] MAMMOGRAPHIC TEXTURE ANALYSIS - AN EVALUATION OF RISK FOR DEVELOPING BREAST-CANCER
    MAGNIN, IE
    CLUZEAU, F
    ODET, CL
    BREMOND, A
    [J]. OPTICAL ENGINEERING, 1986, 25 (06) : 780 - 784