A Case-Control Study to Add Volumetric or Clinical Mammographic Density into the Tyrer-Cuzick Breast Cancer Risk Model.
breast cancer risk models
breast density
breast neoplasms
early detection of cancer
risk factors
Journal
Journal of breast imaging
ISSN: 2631-6129
Titre abrégé: J Breast Imaging
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101752190
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2019
Jun 2019
Historique:
received:
12
12
2018
entrez:
20
8
2019
pubmed:
20
8
2019
medline:
20
8
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Accurate breast cancer risk assessment for women attending routine screening is needed to guide screening and preventive interventions. We evaluated the accuracy of risk predictions from both visual and volumetric mammographic density combined with the Tyrer-Cuzick breast cancer risk model. A case-control study (474 patient participants and 2243 healthy control participants) of women aged 40-79 years was performed using self-reported classical risk factors. Breast density was measured by using automated volumetric software and Breast Imaging and Reporting Data System (BI-RADS) density categories. Odds ratios (95% CI) were estimated by using logistic regression, adjusted for age, demographic factors, and 10-year risk from the Tyrer-Cuzick model, for a change from the 25 After adjustment for classical risk factors in the Tyrer-Cuzick model, age, and body mass index (BMI), BI-RADS density had an IQ-OR of 1.55 (95% CI = 1.33 to 1.80) compared with 1.40 (95% CI = 1.21 to 1.60) for volumetric percent density. Fibroglandular volume (IQ-OR = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.12 to 1.47) was a weaker predictor than was BI-RADS density (P The addition of volumetric and visual mammographic density measures to classical risk factors improves risk stratification. A combined risk could be used to guide precision medicine, through risk-adapted screening and prevention strategies.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Accurate breast cancer risk assessment for women attending routine screening is needed to guide screening and preventive interventions. We evaluated the accuracy of risk predictions from both visual and volumetric mammographic density combined with the Tyrer-Cuzick breast cancer risk model.
METHODS
METHODS
A case-control study (474 patient participants and 2243 healthy control participants) of women aged 40-79 years was performed using self-reported classical risk factors. Breast density was measured by using automated volumetric software and Breast Imaging and Reporting Data System (BI-RADS) density categories. Odds ratios (95% CI) were estimated by using logistic regression, adjusted for age, demographic factors, and 10-year risk from the Tyrer-Cuzick model, for a change from the 25
RESULTS
RESULTS
After adjustment for classical risk factors in the Tyrer-Cuzick model, age, and body mass index (BMI), BI-RADS density had an IQ-OR of 1.55 (95% CI = 1.33 to 1.80) compared with 1.40 (95% CI = 1.21 to 1.60) for volumetric percent density. Fibroglandular volume (IQ-OR = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.12 to 1.47) was a weaker predictor than was BI-RADS density (P
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The addition of volumetric and visual mammographic density measures to classical risk factors improves risk stratification. A combined risk could be used to guide precision medicine, through risk-adapted screening and prevention strategies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31423486
doi: 10.1093/jbi/wbz006
pii: wbz006
pmc: PMC6690422
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
99-106Références
Radiology. 2004 Jan;230(1):29-41
pubmed: 14617762
Stat Med. 2004 Apr 15;23(7):1111-30
pubmed: 15057881
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006 Jun;15(6):1159-69
pubmed: 16775176
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006 Sep 6;98(17):1204-14
pubmed: 16954473
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006 Sep 6;98(17):1215-26
pubmed: 16954474
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1976 Jun;126(6):1130-7
pubmed: 179369
Ann Intern Med. 2008 Mar 4;148(5):337-47
pubmed: 18316752
Ann Intern Med. 2011 Jul 5;155(1):10-20
pubmed: 21727289
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012 Apr;132(2):365-77
pubmed: 22037780
Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2011 Dec 06;9(1):33-40
pubmed: 22143145
Biometrika. 2009 Jun;96(2):371-382
pubmed: 22822245
Radiology. 2013 Mar;266(3):752-8
pubmed: 23249570
Lancet. 2013 May 25;381(9880):1827-34
pubmed: 23639488
Br J Cancer. 2013 Jun 11;108(11):2205-40
pubmed: 23744281
PLoS One. 2013 Dec 04;8(12):e81653
pubmed: 24324712
Lancet. 2014 Mar 22;383(9922):1041-8
pubmed: 24333009
PLoS One. 2014 Jan 21;9(1):e85952
pubmed: 24465808
Stat Med. 2015 Feb 10;34(3):396-405
pubmed: 25318454
Radiology. 2015 May;275(2):366-76
pubmed: 25734553
J Natl Cancer Inst. 1989 Dec 20;81(24):1879-86
pubmed: 2593165
JAMA. 2015 Oct 20;314(15):1599-614
pubmed: 26501536
Breast Cancer Res. 2015 Dec 01;17(1):147
pubmed: 26627479
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2016 Mar;25(3):455-62
pubmed: 26646362
Ann Oncol. 2016 Apr;27(4):575-90
pubmed: 26646754
Radiology. 2016 Jun;279(3):710-9
pubmed: 26694052
Cancer. 2016 May 1;122(9):1312-37
pubmed: 26959385
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017 Jul;164(2):263-284
pubmed: 28444533
JAMA Oncol. 2018 Apr 1;4(4):476-482
pubmed: 29346471
JAMA Oncol. 2018 Sep 1;4(9):e180174
pubmed: 29621362
Am J Epidemiol. 1984 Mar;119(3):371-81
pubmed: 6702813
Br J Cancer. 1982 Feb;45(2):185-93
pubmed: 7059469
Am J Epidemiol. 1982 Mar;115(3):428-37
pubmed: 7064977
Radiographics. 1998 Nov-Dec;18(6):1587-98
pubmed: 9821201