Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Breast Cancer Research 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research article

Predicting interval and screen-detected breast cancers from mammographic density defined by different brightness thresholds

Authors: Tuong L. Nguyen, Ye K. Aung, Shuai Li, Nhut Ho Trinh, Christopher F. Evans, Laura Baglietto, Kavitha Krishnan, Gillian S. Dite, Jennifer Stone, Dallas R. English, Yun-Mi Song, Joohon Sung, Mark A. Jenkins, Melissa C. Southey, Graham G. Giles, John L. Hopper

Published in: Breast Cancer Research | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Case–control studies show that mammographic density is a better risk factor when defined at higher than conventional pixel-brightness thresholds. We asked if this applied to interval and/or screen-detected cancers.

Method

We conducted a nested case–control study within the prospective Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study including 168 women with interval and 422 with screen-detected breast cancers, and 498 and 1197 matched controls, respectively. We measured absolute and percent mammographic density using the Cumulus software at the conventional threshold (Cumulus) and two increasingly higher thresholds (Altocumulus and Cirrocumulus, respectively). Measures were transformed and adjusted for age and body mass index (BMI). Using conditional logistic regression and adjusting for BMI by age at mammogram, we estimated risk discrimination by the odds ratio per adjusted standard deviation (OPERA), calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and compared nested models using the likelihood ratio criterion and models with the same number of parameters using the difference in Bayesian information criterion (ΔBIC).

Results

For interval cancer, there was very strong evidence that the association was best predicted by Cumulus as a percentage (OPERA = 2.33 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.85–2.92); all ΔBIC > 14), and the association with BMI was independent of age at mammogram. After adjusting for percent Cumulus, no other measure was associated with risk (all P > 0.1). For screen-detected cancer, however, the associations were strongest for the absolute and percent Cirrocumulus measures (all ΔBIC > 6), and after adjusting for Cirrocumulus, no other measure was associated with risk (all P > 0.07).

Conclusion

The amount of brighter areas is the best mammogram-based measure of screen-detected breast cancer risk, while the percentage of the breast covered by white or bright areas is the best mammogram-based measure of interval breast cancer risk, irrespective of BMI. Therefore, there are different features of mammographic images that give clinically important information about different outcomes.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ, Sun L, Stone J, Fishell E, Jong RA, Hislop G, Chiarelli A, Minkin S, et al. Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(3):227–36.PubMedCrossRef Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ, Sun L, Stone J, Fishell E, Jong RA, Hislop G, Chiarelli A, Minkin S, et al. Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(3):227–36.PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Rubin SM, Sandrock C, Ernster VL. Efficacy of screening mammography. A meta-analysis. JAMA. 1995;273(2):149–54.PubMedCrossRef Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Rubin SM, Sandrock C, Ernster VL. Efficacy of screening mammography. A meta-analysis. JAMA. 1995;273(2):149–54.PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Ernster V. Benefit of mammography screening in women ages 40-49 years: current evidence from randomized controlled trials. Cancer. 1995;76(9):1679–81.PubMedCrossRef Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Ernster V. Benefit of mammography screening in women ages 40-49 years: current evidence from randomized controlled trials. Cancer. 1995;76(9):1679–81.PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Dehkordy SF, Carlos RC. Dense breast legislation in the United States: state of the States. J Am Coll Radiol. 2016;13(11S):R53–7.PubMedCrossRef Dehkordy SF, Carlos RC. Dense breast legislation in the United States: state of the States. J Am Coll Radiol. 2016;13(11S):R53–7.PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL, White D, Finder CA, Taplin SH, White E. Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92(13):1081–7.PubMedCrossRef Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL, White D, Finder CA, Taplin SH, White E. Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92(13):1081–7.PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Eriksson L, Czene K, Rosenberg LU, Tornberg S, Humphreys K, Hall P. Mammographic density and survival in interval breast cancers. Breast Cancer Res. 2013;15(3):R48.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Eriksson L, Czene K, Rosenberg LU, Tornberg S, Humphreys K, Hall P. Mammographic density and survival in interval breast cancers. Breast Cancer Res. 2013;15(3):R48.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Porter PL, El-Bastawissi AY, Mandelson MT, Lin MG, Khalid N, Watney EA, Cousens L, White D, Taplin S, White E. Breast tumor characteristics as predictors of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999;91(23):2020–8.PubMedCrossRef Porter PL, El-Bastawissi AY, Mandelson MT, Lin MG, Khalid N, Watney EA, Cousens L, White D, Taplin S, White E. Breast tumor characteristics as predictors of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999;91(23):2020–8.PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Gilliland FD, Joste N, Stauber PM, Hunt WC, Rosenberg R, Redlich G, Key CR. Biologic characteristics of interval and screen-detected breast cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92(9):743–9.PubMedCrossRef Gilliland FD, Joste N, Stauber PM, Hunt WC, Rosenberg R, Redlich G, Key CR. Biologic characteristics of interval and screen-detected breast cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92(9):743–9.PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Kirsh VA, Chiarelli AM, Edwards SA, O'Malley FP, Shumak RS, Yaffe MJ, Boyd NF. Tumor characteristics associated with mammographic detection of breast cancer in the Ontario breast screening program. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103(12):942–50.PubMedCrossRef Kirsh VA, Chiarelli AM, Edwards SA, O'Malley FP, Shumak RS, Yaffe MJ, Boyd NF. Tumor characteristics associated with mammographic detection of breast cancer in the Ontario breast screening program. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103(12):942–50.PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Domingo L, Blanch J, Servitja S, Corominas JM, Murta-Nascimento C, Rueda A, Redondo M, Castells X, Sala M. Aggressiveness features and outcomes of true interval cancers: comparison between screen-detected and symptom-detected cancers. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2013;22(1):21–8.PubMedCrossRef Domingo L, Blanch J, Servitja S, Corominas JM, Murta-Nascimento C, Rueda A, Redondo M, Castells X, Sala M. Aggressiveness features and outcomes of true interval cancers: comparison between screen-detected and symptom-detected cancers. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2013;22(1):21–8.PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Holm J, Humphreys K, Li J, Ploner A, Cheddad A, Eriksson M, Tornberg S, Hall P, Czene K. Risk factors and tumor characteristics of interval cancers by mammographic density. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(9):1030–7.PubMedCrossRef Holm J, Humphreys K, Li J, Ploner A, Cheddad A, Eriksson M, Tornberg S, Hall P, Czene K. Risk factors and tumor characteristics of interval cancers by mammographic density. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(9):1030–7.PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Krishnan K, Baglietto L, Apicella C, Stone J, Southey MC, English DR, Giles GG, Hopper JL. Mammographic density and risk of breast cancer by mode of detection and tumor size: a case-control study. Breast Cancer Res. 2016;18(1):63.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Krishnan K, Baglietto L, Apicella C, Stone J, Southey MC, English DR, Giles GG, Hopper JL. Mammographic density and risk of breast cancer by mode of detection and tumor size: a case-control study. Breast Cancer Res. 2016;18(1):63.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Nguyen TL, Aung KY, Evans CF, Dite GS, Stone J, Maclnnis RJ, Dowty JG, Bickerstaffe A, Aujard K, Rommens J, et al. Mammographic density definded by higher than conventional brightness thresholds better predicts breast cancer risk. Int J Epidemiol. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyw212. Nguyen TL, Aung KY, Evans CF, Dite GS, Stone J, Maclnnis RJ, Dowty JG, Bickerstaffe A, Aujard K, Rommens J, et al. Mammographic density definded by higher than conventional brightness thresholds better predicts breast cancer risk. Int J Epidemiol. 2016. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1093/​ije/​dyw212.
14.
go back to reference Nguyen TL, Aung YK, Evans CF, Yoon-Ho C, Jenkins MA, Sung J, Hopper JL, Song YM. Mammographic density defined by higher than conventional brightness threshold better predicts breast cancer risk for full-field digital mammograms. Breast Cancer Res. 2015;17(1):142.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Nguyen TL, Aung YK, Evans CF, Yoon-Ho C, Jenkins MA, Sung J, Hopper JL, Song YM. Mammographic density defined by higher than conventional brightness threshold better predicts breast cancer risk for full-field digital mammograms. Breast Cancer Res. 2015;17(1):142.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Nguyen TL, Choi YH, Aung YK, et al. Breast cancer risk associations with digital mammographic density by pixel brightness threshold and mammographic system. Radiology. 2018;286(2):433–42. Nguyen TL, Choi YH, Aung YK, et al. Breast cancer risk associations with digital mammographic density by pixel brightness threshold and mammographic system. Radiology. 2018;286(2):433–42.
16.
go back to reference Ireland P, Jolley D, Giles G, O'Dea K, Powles J, Rutishauser I, Wahlqvist ML, Williams J. Development of the Melbourne FFQ: a food frequency questionnaire for use in an Australian prospective study involving an ethnically diverse cohort. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 1994;3(1):19–31.PubMed Ireland P, Jolley D, Giles G, O'Dea K, Powles J, Rutishauser I, Wahlqvist ML, Williams J. Development of the Melbourne FFQ: a food frequency questionnaire for use in an Australian prospective study involving an ethnically diverse cohort. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 1994;3(1):19–31.PubMed
17.
go back to reference Giles GG, English DR. The Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study. IARC Sci Publ. 2002;156:69–70.PubMed Giles GG, English DR. The Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study. IARC Sci Publ. 2002;156:69–70.PubMed
18.
go back to reference Baglietto L, Krishnan K, Stone J, Apicella C, Southey MC, English DR, Hopper JL, Giles GG. Associations of mammographic dense and nondense areas and body mass index with risk of breast cancer. Am J Epidemiol. 2014;179(4):475–83.PubMedCrossRef Baglietto L, Krishnan K, Stone J, Apicella C, Southey MC, English DR, Hopper JL, Giles GG. Associations of mammographic dense and nondense areas and body mass index with risk of breast cancer. Am J Epidemiol. 2014;179(4):475–83.PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Byng JW, Yaffe MJ, Jong RA, Shumak RS, Lockwood GA, Tritchler DL, Boyd NF. Analysis of mammographic density and breast cancer risk from digitized mammograms. Radiographics. 1998;18(6):1587–98.PubMedCrossRef Byng JW, Yaffe MJ, Jong RA, Shumak RS, Lockwood GA, Tritchler DL, Boyd NF. Analysis of mammographic density and breast cancer risk from digitized mammograms. Radiographics. 1998;18(6):1587–98.PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Box GEP, Cox DR. An analysis of transformations. J Royal Stat Soc Series B. 1964;26(2):211–52. Box GEP, Cox DR. An analysis of transformations. J Royal Stat Soc Series B. 1964;26(2):211–52.
21.
go back to reference Hopper JL. Odds per Adjusted Standard Deviation: Comparing Strengths of Associations for Risk Factors Measured on Different Scales and Across Diseases and Populations. Am J Epidemiol. 2015;182(10):863–7. Hopper JL. Odds per Adjusted Standard Deviation: Comparing Strengths of Associations for Risk Factors Measured on Different Scales and Across Diseases and Populations. Am J Epidemiol. 2015;182(10):863–7.
22.
go back to reference StataCorp: Stata statistical software. In. Edited by 12 R. College Staion: StataCorp LP; 2009. StataCorp: Stata statistical software. In. Edited by 12 R. College Staion: StataCorp LP; 2009.
23.
go back to reference Kass RE, Raftery AE. Bayes Factors. J Am Stat Assoc. 1995;90(430):773–95.CrossRef Kass RE, Raftery AE. Bayes Factors. J Am Stat Assoc. 1995;90(430):773–95.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Macinnis RJ, English DR, Gertig DM, Hopper JL, Giles GG. Body size and composition and risk of postmenopausal breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2004;13(12):2117–25. Macinnis RJ, English DR, Gertig DM, Hopper JL, Giles GG. Body size and composition and risk of postmenopausal breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2004;13(12):2117–25.
25.
go back to reference Wang C, Brentnall AR, Cuzick J, Harkness EF, Evans DG, Astley S. Exploring the prediction performance for breast cancer risk based on volumetric mammographic density at different thresholds. Breast Cancer Res. 2018;20(1):49.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Wang C, Brentnall AR, Cuzick J, Harkness EF, Evans DG, Astley S. Exploring the prediction performance for breast cancer risk based on volumetric mammographic density at different thresholds. Breast Cancer Res. 2018;20(1):49.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
26.
go back to reference Hopper JL, Dite GS, MacInnis RJ, et al. Age-specific breast cancer risk by body mass index and familial risk: prospective family study cohort (ProF-SC). Breast Cancer Res. 2018;20(1):132. Hopper JL, Dite GS, MacInnis RJ, et al. Age-specific breast cancer risk by body mass index and familial risk: prospective family study cohort (ProF-SC). Breast Cancer Res. 2018;20(1):132.
27.
go back to reference Krishnan K, Baglietto L, Stone J, et al. Longitudinal Study of Mammographic Density Measures That Predict Breast Cancer Risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2017;26(4):651–60. Krishnan K, Baglietto L, Stone J, et al. Longitudinal Study of Mammographic Density Measures That Predict Breast Cancer Risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2017;26(4):651–60.
28.
go back to reference Suleiman WI, Rawashdeh MA, Lewis SJ, McEntee MF, Lee W, Tapia K, Brennan PC. Impact of breast reader assessment strategy on mammographic radiologists’ test reading performance. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2016;60(3):352–8.PubMedCrossRef Suleiman WI, Rawashdeh MA, Lewis SJ, McEntee MF, Lee W, Tapia K, Brennan PC. Impact of breast reader assessment strategy on mammographic radiologists’ test reading performance. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2016;60(3):352–8.PubMedCrossRef
29.
go back to reference Shawky MS, Martin H, Hugo HJ, Lloyd T, Britt KL, Redfern A, Thompson EW. Mammographic density: a potential monitoring biomarker for adjuvant and preventative breast cancer endocrine therapies. Oncotarget. 2017;8(3):5578–91.PubMedCrossRef Shawky MS, Martin H, Hugo HJ, Lloyd T, Britt KL, Redfern A, Thompson EW. Mammographic density: a potential monitoring biomarker for adjuvant and preventative breast cancer endocrine therapies. Oncotarget. 2017;8(3):5578–91.PubMedCrossRef
30.
go back to reference Stone J, Thompson DJ, Dos Santos Silva I, Scott C, Tamimi RM, Lindstrom S, Kraft P, Hazra A, Li J, Eriksson L, et al. Novel Associations between common breast cancer susceptibility variants and risk-predicting mammographic density measures. Cancer Res. 2015;75(12):2457–67.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Stone J, Thompson DJ, Dos Santos Silva I, Scott C, Tamimi RM, Lindstrom S, Kraft P, Hazra A, Li J, Eriksson L, et al. Novel Associations between common breast cancer susceptibility variants and risk-predicting mammographic density measures. Cancer Res. 2015;75(12):2457–67.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Predicting interval and screen-detected breast cancers from mammographic density defined by different brightness thresholds
Authors
Tuong L. Nguyen
Ye K. Aung
Shuai Li
Nhut Ho Trinh
Christopher F. Evans
Laura Baglietto
Kavitha Krishnan
Gillian S. Dite
Jennifer Stone
Dallas R. English
Yun-Mi Song
Joohon Sung
Mark A. Jenkins
Melissa C. Southey
Graham G. Giles
John L. Hopper
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Breast Cancer Research / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1465-542X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-018-1081-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Breast Cancer Research 1/2018 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine