Impact of type of full-field digital image on mammographic density assessment and breast cancer risk estimation: a case-control study

被引:15
|
作者
Busana, Marta Cecilia [1 ]
Eng, Amanda [1 ,2 ]
Denholm, Rachel [1 ]
Dowsett, Mitch [3 ]
Vinnicombe, Sarah [4 ]
Allen, Steve [5 ]
dos-Santos-Silva, Isabel [1 ]
机构
[1] London Sch Hyg & Trop Med, Dept Noncommunicable Dis Epidemiol, Keppel St, London WC1E 7HT, England
[2] Massey Univ, Ctr Publ Hlth Res, Wellington, New Zealand
[3] Royal Marsden Hosp, Acad Biochem, London, England
[4] Univ Dundee, Ninewells Hosp, Canc Res, Sch Med, Dundee, Scotland
[5] Royal Marsden NHS Fdn Trust, Dept Imaging, London, England
来源
BREAST CANCER RESEARCH | 2016年 / 18卷
关键词
Digital mammography; Mammographic density; Breast density; Breast cancer; Image acquisition; SEGMENTATION; PREDICTION; TOOL; RAW;
D O I
10.1186/s13058-016-0756-7
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Background: Full-field digital mammography, which is gradually being introduced in most clinical and screening settings, produces two types of images: raw and processed. However, the extent to which mammographic density measurements, and their ability to predict breast cancer risk, vary according to type of image is not fully known. Methods: We compared the performance of the semi-automated Cumulus method on digital raw, "analogue-like" raw and processed images, and the performance of a recently developed method - Laboratory for Breast Radiodensity Assessment (LIBRA) - on digital raw and processed images, in a case-control study (414 patients (cases) and 684 controls) by evaluating the extent to which their measurements were associated with breast cancer risk factors, and by comparing their ability to predict breast cancer risk. Results: Valid Cumulus and LIBRA measurements were obtained from all available images, but the resulting distributions differed according to the method and type of image used. Both Cumulus and LIBRA percent density were inversely associated with age, body mass index (BMI), parity and postmenopausal status, regardless of type of image used. Cumulus percent density was strongly associated with breast cancer risk, but with the magnitude of the association slightly stronger for processed (risk increase per one SD increase in percent density (95 % CI): 1.55 (1.29, 1.85)) and "analogue-like" raw (1.52 (1.28, 1.80)) than for raw (1.35 (1.14, 1.60)) images. LIBRA percent density produced weaker associations with risk, albeit stronger for processed (1.32 (1.08, 1.61)) than raw images (1.17 (0.99, 1.37)). The percent density values yielded by the various density assessment/type of image combinations had similar ability to discriminate between patients and controls (area under the receiving operating curve values for percent density, age, BMI, parity and menopausal status combined ranged from 0.61 and 0.64). Conclusions: The findings showed that Cumulus can be used to measure density on all types of digital images. They also indicate that LIBRA may provide a valid fully automated alternative to the more labour-intensive Cumulus. However, the same digital image type and assessment method should be used when examining mammographic density across populations, or longitudinal changes in density within a single population.
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Impact of type of full-field digital image on mammographic density assessment and breast cancer risk estimation: a case-control study
    Marta Cecilia Busana
    Amanda Eng
    Rachel Denholm
    Mitch Dowsett
    Sarah Vinnicombe
    Steve Allen
    Isabel dos-Santos-Silva
    [J]. Breast Cancer Research, 18
  • [2] Digital mammographic density and breast cancer risk: a case-control study of six alternative density assessment methods
    Eng, Amanda
    Gallant, Zoe
    Shepherd, John
    McCormack, Valerie
    Li, Jingmei
    Dowsett, Mitch
    Vinnicombe, Sarah
    Allen, Steve
    dos-Santos-Silva, Isabel
    [J]. BREAST CANCER RESEARCH, 2014, 16 (05)
  • [3] Area and Volumetric Density Estimation in Processed Full-Field Digital Mammograms for Risk Assessment of Breast Cancer
    Cheddad, Abbas
    Czene, Kamila
    Eriksson, Mikael
    Li, Jingmei
    Easton, Douglas
    Hall, Per
    Humphreys, Keith
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2014, 9 (10):
  • [4] Case-control study of mammographic density and breast cancer risk using processed digital mammograms
    Laurel A. Habel
    Jafi A. Lipson
    Ninah Achacoso
    Joseph H. Rothstein
    Martin J. Yaffe
    Rhea Y. Liang
    Luana Acton
    Valerie McGuire
    Alice S. Whittemore
    Daniel L. Rubin
    Weiva Sieh
    [J]. Breast Cancer Research, 18
  • [5] Case-control study of mammographic density and breast cancer risk using processed digital mammograms
    Habel, Laurel A.
    Lipson, Jafi A.
    Achacoso, Ninah
    Rothstein, Joseph H.
    Yaffe, Martin J.
    Liang, Rhea Y.
    Acton, Luana
    McGuire, Valerie
    Whittemore, Alice S.
    Rubin, Daniel L.
    Sieh, Weiva
    [J]. BREAST CANCER RESEARCH, 2016, 18
  • [6] Digital mammographic density and breast cancer risk: a case–control study of six alternative density assessment methods
    Amanda Eng
    Zoe Gallant
    John Shepherd
    Valerie McCormack
    Jingmei Li
    Mitch Dowsett
    Sarah Vinnicombe
    Steve Allen
    Isabel dos-Santos-Silva
    [J]. Breast Cancer Research, 16
  • [7] Mammographic density and risk of breast cancer by tumor characteristics: a case-control study
    Krishnan, Kavitha
    Baglietto, Laura
    Stone, Jennifer
    McLean, Catriona
    Southey, Melissa C.
    English, Dallas R.
    Giles, Graham G.
    Hopper, John L.
    [J]. BMC CANCER, 2017, 17
  • [8] Mammographic density and risk of breast cancer by tumor characteristics: a case-control study
    Kavitha Krishnan
    Laura Baglietto
    Jennifer Stone
    Catriona McLean
    Melissa C. Southey
    Dallas R. English
    Graham G. Giles
    John L. Hopper
    [J]. BMC Cancer, 17
  • [9] Mammographic density as a risk factor for breast cancer in a German case-control study
    Heusinger, Katharina
    Loehberg, Christian R.
    Haeberle, Lothar
    Jud, Sebastian M.
    Klingsiek, Peter
    Hein, Alexander
    Bayer, Christian M.
    Rauh, Claudia
    Uder, Michael
    Cavallaro, Alexander
    May, Matthias S.
    Adamietz, Boris
    Schulz-Wendtland, Ruediger
    Wittenberg, Thomas
    Wagner, Florian
    Beckmann, Matthias W.
    Fasching, Peter A.
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER PREVENTION, 2011, 20 (01) : 1 - 8
  • [10] Change of mammographic density predicts the risk of contralateral breast cancer - a case-control study
    Sandberg, Maria E. C.
    Li, Jingmei
    Hall, Per
    Hartman, Mikael
    dos-Santos-Silva, Isabel
    Humphreys, Keith
    Czene, Kamila
    [J]. BREAST CANCER RESEARCH, 2013, 15 (04)