Evaluating the Effectiveness of Using Standard Mammogram Form to Predict Breast Cancer Risk: Case-Control Study
Breast density is a well-known breast cancer risk factor. Most current methods of measuring breast density are area based and subjective. Standard mammogram form (SMF) is a computer program using a volumetric approach to estimate the percent density in the breast. The aim of this study is to evaluat...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention biomarkers & prevention, 2008-05, Vol.17 (5), p.1074-1081 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Breast density is a well-known breast cancer risk factor. Most current methods of measuring breast density are area based
and subjective. Standard mammogram form (SMF) is a computer program using a volumetric approach to estimate the percent density
in the breast. The aim of this study is to evaluate the current implementation of SMF as a predictor of breast cancer risk
by comparing it with other widely used density measurement methods. The case-control study comprised 634 cancers with 1,880
age-matched controls combined from the Cambridge and Norwich Breast Screening Programs. Data collection involved assessing
the films based both on Wolfe's parenchymal patterns and on visual estimation of percent density and then digitizing the films
for computer analysis (interactive threshold technique and SMF). Logistic regression was used to produce odds ratios associated
with increasing categories of breast density. Density measures from all four methods were strongly associated with breast
cancer risk in the overall population. The stepwise rises in risk associated with increasing density as measured by the threshold
method were 1.37 [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.03-1.82], 1.80 (95% CI, 1.36-2.37), and 2.45 (95% CI, 1.86-3.23). For
each increasing quartile of SMF density measures, the risks were 1.11 (95% CI, 0.85-1.46), 1.31 (95% CI, 1.00-1.71), and 1.92
(95% CI, 1.47-2.51). After the model was adjusted for SMF results, the threshold readings maintained the same strong stepwise
increase in density-risk relationship. On the contrary, once the model was adjusted for threshold readings, SMF outcome was
no longer related to cancer risk. The available implementation of SMF is not a better cancer risk predictor compared with
the thresholding method. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008;17(5):1074–81) |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1055-9965 1538-7755 |
DOI: | 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-2634 |