TY - GEN
T1 - Does the prediction of breast cancer improve using a combination of mammographic density measures compared to individual measures alone?
AU - Wong Sik Hee, Joseph
AU - Harkness, Elaine
AU - Gadde, Soujanya
AU - Lim, Yit
AU - Maxwell, Anthony
AU - Evans, Dafydd
AU - Howell, Anthony
AU - Astley, Susan
PY - 2017/3/3
Y1 - 2017/3/3
N2 - High mammographic density is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer, however whether the association is stronger when there is agreement across measures is unclear. This study investigates whether a combination of density measures is a better predictor of breast cancer risk than individual methods alone. Women recruited to the Predicting Risk of Cancer At Screening (PROCAS) study and with mammographic density assessed using three different methods were included (n=33,304). Density was assessed visually using Visual Analogue Scales (VAS) and by two fully automated methods, Quantra and Volpara. Percentage breast density was divided into (high, medium and low) and combinations of measures were used to further categorise individuals (e.g. ‘all high’). A total of 667 breast cancers were identified and logistic regression was used to determine the relationship between breast density and breast cancer risk. In total, 44% of individuals were in the same tertile for all three measures, 8.6% were in non-adjacent (high and low) or mixed categories (high, medium and low). For individual methods the strongest association with breast cancer risk was for medium and high tertiles of VAS with odds ratios (OR) adjusted for age and BMI of 1.63 (95% CI 1.31-2.03) and 2.33 (1.87-2.90) respectively. For the combination of density methods the strongest association was for ‘all high’ (OR 2.42, 1.77-3.31) followed by “two high” (OR 1.90, 1.35-3.31) and “two medium” (OR 1.88, 1.40-2.52). Combining density measures did not affect the magnitude of risk compared to using individual methods.
AB - High mammographic density is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer, however whether the association is stronger when there is agreement across measures is unclear. This study investigates whether a combination of density measures is a better predictor of breast cancer risk than individual methods alone. Women recruited to the Predicting Risk of Cancer At Screening (PROCAS) study and with mammographic density assessed using three different methods were included (n=33,304). Density was assessed visually using Visual Analogue Scales (VAS) and by two fully automated methods, Quantra and Volpara. Percentage breast density was divided into (high, medium and low) and combinations of measures were used to further categorise individuals (e.g. ‘all high’). A total of 667 breast cancers were identified and logistic regression was used to determine the relationship between breast density and breast cancer risk. In total, 44% of individuals were in the same tertile for all three measures, 8.6% were in non-adjacent (high and low) or mixed categories (high, medium and low). For individual methods the strongest association with breast cancer risk was for medium and high tertiles of VAS with odds ratios (OR) adjusted for age and BMI of 1.63 (95% CI 1.31-2.03) and 2.33 (1.87-2.90) respectively. For the combination of density methods the strongest association was for ‘all high’ (OR 2.42, 1.77-3.31) followed by “two high” (OR 1.90, 1.35-3.31) and “two medium” (OR 1.88, 1.40-2.52). Combining density measures did not affect the magnitude of risk compared to using individual methods.
U2 - 10.1117/12.2254291
DO - 10.1117/12.2254291
M3 - Conference contribution
VL - 10134
BT - SPIE Digital Library
ER -