Dataset Information

Methods for assessing and representing mammographic density: an analysis of 4 case-control studies.

ABSTRACT: To maximize statistical power in studies of mammographic density and breast cancer, it is advantageous to combine data from several studies, but standardization of the density assessment is desirable. Using data from 4 case-control studies, we describe the process of reassessment and the resulting correlation between values, identify predictors of differences in density readings, and evaluate the strength of the association between mammographic density and breast cancer risk using different representations of density values. The pooled analysis included 1,699 cases and 2,422 controls from California (1990-1998), Hawaii (1996-2003), Minnesota (1992-2001), and Japan (1999-2003). In 2010, a single reader reassessed all images for mammographic density using Cumulus software (Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada). The mean difference between original and reassessed percent density values was -0.7% (95% confidence interval: -1.1, -0.3), with a correlation of 0.82 that varied by location (r = 0.80-0.89). Case status, weight status, age, parity, density assessment method, mammogram view, and race/ethnicity were significant determinants of the difference between original and reassessed values; in combination, these factors explained 9.2% of the variation. The associations of mammographic density with breast cancer and the model fits were similar using the original values and the reassessed values but were slightly strengthened when a calibrated value based on 100 reassessed radiographs was used.

SUBMITTER: Woolcott CG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3873107 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Methods for assessing and representing mammographic density: an analysis of 4 case-control studies.

Woolcott Christy G CG Conroy Shannon M SM Nagata Chisato C Ursin Giske G Vachon Celine M CM Yaffe Martin J MJ Pagano Ian S IS Byrne Celia C Maskarinec Gertraud G

American journal of epidemiology 20131011 2

To maximize statistical power in studies of mammographic density and breast cancer, it is advantageous to combine data from several studies, but standardization of the density assessment is desirable. Using data from 4 case-control studies, we describe the process of reassessment and the resulting correlation between values, identify predictors of differences in density readings, and evaluate the strength of the association between mammographic density and breast cancer risk using different repr ...[more]

PMID: 24124193

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Mammographic density is a strong breast cancer risk factor and a major determinant of screening sensitivity. However, there is currently no validated estimation method for full-field digital mammography (FFDM). METHODS:The performance of three area-based approaches (BI-RADS, the semi-automated Cumulus, and the fully-automated ImageJ-based approach) and three fully-automated volumetric methods (Volpara, Quantra and single energy x-ray absorptiometry (SXA)) were assessed in 3168 FFDM images from 414 cases and 685 controls. Linear regression models were used to assess associations between breast cancer risk factors and density among controls, and logistic regression models to assess density-breast cancer risk associations, adjusting for age, body mass index (BMI) and reproductive variables. RESULTS:Quantra and the ImageJ-based approach failed to produce readings for 4% and 11% of the participants. All six density assessment methods showed that percent density (PD) was inversely associated with age, BMI, being parous and postmenopausal at mammography. PD was positively associated with breast cancer for all methods, but with the increase in risk per standard deviation increment in PD being highest for Volpara (1.83; 95% CI: 1.51 to 2.21) and Cumulus (1.58; 1.33 to 1.88) and lower for the ImageJ-based method (1.45; 1.21 to 1.74), Quantra (1.40; 1.19 to 1.66) and SXA (1.37; 1.16 to 1.63). Women in the top PD quintile (or BI-RADS 4) had 8.26 (4.28 to 15.96), 3.94 (2.26 to 6.86), 3.38 (2.00 to 5.72), 2.99 (1.76 to 5.09), 2.55 (1.46 to 4.43) and 2.96 (0.50 to 17.5) times the risk of those in the bottom one (or BI-RADS 1), respectively, for Volpara, Quantra, Cumulus, SXA, ImageJ-based method, and BI-RADS (P for trend <0.0001 for all). The ImageJ-based method had a slightly higher ability to discriminate between cases and controls (area under the curve (AUC) for PD?=?0.68, P?=?0.05), and Quantra slightly lower (AUC?=?0.63; P?=?0.06), than Cumulus (AUC?=?0.65). CONCLUSIONS:Fully-automated methods are valid alternatives to the labour-intensive "gold standard" Cumulus for quantifying density in FFDM. The choice of a particular method will depend on the aims and setting but the same approach will be required for longitudinal density assessments.

Dataset Information

Methods for assessing and representing mammographic density: an analysis of 4 case-control studies.

Publications

Methods for assessing and representing mammographic density: an analysis of 4 case-control studies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets