Measurements: Implications for risk prediction and supplemental screening

Radiology

Volumn 279, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 710-719

  Brandt, Kathleen R ^a   Scott, Christopher G ^a   Ma, Lin ^b   Mahmoudzadeh, Amir P ^b   Jensen, Matthew R ^a   Whaley, Dana H ^a   Wu, Fang Fang ^a   Malkov, Serghei ^b   Hruska, Carrie B ^a   Norman, Aaron D ^a   Heine, John ^c   Shepherd, John ^b   Shane, V Pankratz ^d   Kerlikowske, Karla ^b   Vachon, Celine M ^a  

^a MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c H LEE MOFFITT CANCER CENTER AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; AGED; ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; BODY MASS; BREAST CANCER; BREAST DENSITY; BREAST IMAGING REPORTING AND DATA SYSTEM; CANCER RISK; CANCER SCREENING; CASE CONTROL STUDY; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; DISEASE REGISTRY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INFORMED CONSENT; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; ODDS RATIO; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RACE DIFFERENCE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; VERY ELDERLY; BREAST NEOPLASMS; EARLY CANCER DIAGNOSIS; FORECASTING; MIDDLE AGED; PROCEDURES; RISK; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; AUTOMATION; BREAST DENSITY; BREAST NEOPLASMS; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FEMALE; FORECASTING; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; RISK; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 85017043968     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2015151261     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Bertrand KA, Tamimi RM, Scott CG, et al. Mammographic density and risk of breast cancer by age and tumor characteristics. Breast Cancer Res 2013;15(6):R104.
2. Vachon CM, Pankratz VS, Scott CG, et al. Longitudinal trends in mammographic percent density and breast cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2007;16(5):921-928.
3. Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ, et al. Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2007; 356(3):227-236.
4. Kerlikowske K, Hubbard RA, Miglioretti DL, et al. Comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in community practice in the United States: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med 2011;155(8):493-502.
5. American College of Radiology. The American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). 4th ed. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 2003.
6. Sickles EA, D'Orsi CJ, Bassett LW, et al. ACR BI-RADS Mammography. In: ACR BIRADS Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. 5th ed. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 2013.
7. Sprague BL, Gangnon RE, Burt V, et al. Prevalence of mammographically dense breasts in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst 2014;106(10):dju255.
8. Kerlikowske K, Zhu W, Tosteson AN, et al. Identifying women with dense breasts at high risk for interval cancer: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med 2015;162(10):673-681.
9. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology 2002;225(1):165-175.
10. McCormack VA, Highnam R, Perry N, dos Santos Silva I. Comparison of a new and existing method of mammographic density measurement: intramethod reliability and associations with known risk factors. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2007;16(6): 1148-1154.
11. Ursin G, Ma H, Wu AH, et al. Mammographic density and breast cancer in three ethnic groups. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2003;12(4):332-338.
12. Maskarinec G, Meng L. A case-control study of mammographic densities in Hawaii. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2000;63(2):153-161.
13. Byrne C, Schairer C, Wolfe J, et al. Mammographic features and breast cancer risk: effects with time, age, and menopause status. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995;87(21):1622-1629.
14. Cummings SR, Tice JA, Bauer S, et al. Prevention of breast cancer in postmenopausal women: approaches to estimating and reducing risk. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009;101(6):384-398.
15. Vachon CM, Ghosh K, Brandt KR. Mammographic density: potential as a risk factor and surrogate marker in the clinical setting. Curr Breast Cancer Rep 2013;5(3):183-193.
16. Wang AT, Vachon CM, Brandt KR, Ghosh K. Breast density and breast cancer risk: a practical review. Mayo Clin Proc 2014;89(4):548-557.
17. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005;353(17):1773-1783.
18. Ciatto S, Bernardi D, Calabrese M, et al. A first evaluation of breast radiological density assessment by QUANTRA software as compared to visual classification. Breast 2012; 21(4):503-506.
19. Lee HN, Sohn YM, Han KH. Comparison of mammographic density estimation by Volpara software with radiologists' visual assessment: analysis of clinical-radiologic factors affecting discrepancy between them. Acta Radiol 2015;56(9):1061-1068.
20. Gweon HM, Youk JH, Kim JA, Son EJ. Radiologist assessment of breast density by BIRADS categories versus fully automated volumetric assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013;201(3):692-697.
21. Eng A, Gallant Z, Shepherd J, et al. Digital mammographic density and breast cancer risk: a case-control study of six alternative density assessment methods. Breast Cancer Res 2014;16(5):439.
22. Park IH, Ko K, Joo J, et al. High volumetric breast density predicts risk for breast cancer in postmenopausal, but not premenopausal, Korean Women. Ann Surg Oncol 2014; 21(13):4124-4132.
23. St Sauver JL, Grossardt BR, Yawn BP, et al. Data resource profile: the Rochester Epidemiology Project (REP) medical recordslinkage system. Int J Epidemiol 2012;41(6): 1614-1624.
24. Berg WA, Campassi C, Langenberg P, Sexton MJ. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: inter- and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;174(6):1769-1777.
25. Hologic Inc. Understanding Quantra 2.0 User Manual - MAN-02004 Rev 002. Bedford, Mass: Hologic, 2012.
26. Volpara Solutions from Matakina Technology. Volpara Density User Manual Version 1.5.11. Wellington, New Zealand: Volpara Solutions, 2013.
27. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33(1):159-174.
28. Brand JS, Czene K, Shepherd JA, et al. Automated measurement of volumetric mammographic density: a tool for widespread breast cancer risk assessment. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2014;23(9):1764-1772.
29. Morrish OW, Tucker L, Black R, Willsher P, Duffy SW, Gilbert FJ. Mammographic breast density: comparison of methods for quantitative evaluation. Radiology 2015;275(2): 356-365.
30. Schmachtenberg C, Hammann-Kloss S, Bick U, Engelken F. Intraindividual comparison of two methods of volumetric breast composition assessment. Acad Radiol 2015; 22(4):447-452.
31. Alonzo-Proulx O, Mawdsley GE, Patrie JT, Yaffe MJ, Harvey JA. Reliability of automated breast density measurements. Radiology 2015;275(2):366-376.
32. Wang J, Azziz A, Fan B, et al. Agreement of mammographic measures of volumetric breast density to MRI. PLoS One 2013;8(12): e81653.
33. Cuzick J, Warwick J, Pinney E, Warren RM, Duffy SW. Tamoxifen and breast density in women at increased risk of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96(8):621-628.
34. Nyante SJ, Sherman ME, Pfeiffer RM, et al. Prognostic significance of mammographic density change after initiation of tamoxifen for ER-positive breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2015;107(3):dju425.
35. Kim J, Han W, Moon HG, et al. Breast density change as a predictive surrogate for response to adjuvant endocrine therapy in hormone receptor positive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 2012;14(4):R102.