Automated volumetric breast density measures: differential change between breasts in women with and without breast cancer.
Breast cancer
Breast density
Risk
Tissue asymmetry
Volumetric density
Journal
Breast cancer research : BCR
ISSN: 1465-542X
Titre abrégé: Breast Cancer Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100927353
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 10 2019
28 10 2019
Historique:
received:
22
04
2019
accepted:
13
09
2019
entrez:
30
10
2019
pubmed:
30
10
2019
medline:
9
4
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Given that breast cancer and normal dense fibroglandular tissue have similar radiographic attenuation, we examine whether automated volumetric density measures identify a differential change between breasts in women with cancer and compare to healthy controls. Eligible cases (n = 1160) had unilateral invasive breast cancer and bilateral full-field digital mammograms (FFDMs) at two time points: within 2 months and 1-5 years before diagnosis. Controls (n = 2360) were matched to cases on age and date of FFDMs. Dense volume (DV) and volumetric percent density (VPD) for each breast were assessed using Volpara™. Differences in DV and VPD between mammograms (median 3 years apart) were calculated per breast separately for cases and controls and their difference evaluated by using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. To simulate clinical practice where cancer laterality is unknown, we examined whether the absolute difference between breasts can discriminate cases from controls using area under the ROC curve (AUC) analysis, adjusting for age, BMI, and time. Among cases, the VPD and DV between mammograms of the cancerous breast decreased to a lesser degree (- 0.26% and - 2.10 cm There is a small relative increase in volumetric density measures over time in the breast with cancer which is not found in the normal breast. However, the magnitude of this difference is small, and this measure alone does not appear to be a good discriminator between women with and without breast cancer.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Given that breast cancer and normal dense fibroglandular tissue have similar radiographic attenuation, we examine whether automated volumetric density measures identify a differential change between breasts in women with cancer and compare to healthy controls.
METHODS
Eligible cases (n = 1160) had unilateral invasive breast cancer and bilateral full-field digital mammograms (FFDMs) at two time points: within 2 months and 1-5 years before diagnosis. Controls (n = 2360) were matched to cases on age and date of FFDMs. Dense volume (DV) and volumetric percent density (VPD) for each breast were assessed using Volpara™. Differences in DV and VPD between mammograms (median 3 years apart) were calculated per breast separately for cases and controls and their difference evaluated by using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. To simulate clinical practice where cancer laterality is unknown, we examined whether the absolute difference between breasts can discriminate cases from controls using area under the ROC curve (AUC) analysis, adjusting for age, BMI, and time.
RESULTS
Among cases, the VPD and DV between mammograms of the cancerous breast decreased to a lesser degree (- 0.26% and - 2.10 cm
CONCLUSION
There is a small relative increase in volumetric density measures over time in the breast with cancer which is not found in the normal breast. However, the magnitude of this difference is small, and this measure alone does not appear to be a good discriminator between women with and without breast cancer.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31660981
doi: 10.1186/s13058-019-1198-9
pii: 10.1186/s13058-019-1198-9
pmc: PMC6819393
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
118Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P01 CA154292
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : R01 CA177150
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : R01 CA207084
Pays : United States
Références
Int J Cancer. 2017 Jan 1;140(1):34-40
pubmed: 27615710
N Engl J Med. 2005 Oct 27;353(17):1773-83
pubmed: 16169887
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017 Jan;208(1):222-227
pubmed: 27824483
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2002 Oct;11(10 Pt 1):1048-53
pubmed: 12376506
Radiology. 2018 Aug;288(2):343-352
pubmed: 29944088
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2016 Jul;35(7):1719-28
pubmed: 26886970
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006 Apr;15(4):732-9
pubmed: 16614116
Springerplus. 2016 Jun 18;5(1):780
pubmed: 27386266
Breast Cancer Res. 2014 Sep 20;16(5):439
pubmed: 25239205
Breast J. 2014 May-Jun;20(3):249-57
pubmed: 24673749
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004 Oct 6;96(19):1432-40
pubmed: 15467032
Cancer. 1977 Nov;40(5):2087-90
pubmed: 922658
Radiology. 2016 Jun;279(3):710-9
pubmed: 26694052
Breast Cancer Res. 2017 Mar 14;19(1):29
pubmed: 28288659
Breast J. 2015 Sep-Oct;21(5):481-9
pubmed: 26133090
Breast J. 2012 Jul-Aug;18(4):326-33
pubmed: 22607064
Radiology. 2015 May;275(2):366-76
pubmed: 25734553
N Engl J Med. 2007 Jan 18;356(3):227-36
pubmed: 17229950
Radiology. 2017 Feb;282(2):348-355
pubmed: 27598536
Breast Cancer Res. 2013 Nov 04;15(6):R104
pubmed: 24188089
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2007 May;16(5):921-8
pubmed: 17507617
Ann Intern Med. 2016 Oct 4;165(7):457-464
pubmed: 27428568
Cancer. 1985 Sep 15;56(6):1280-6
pubmed: 4027868
Radiology. 2016 Apr;279(1):65-74
pubmed: 26491909
Ann Intern Med. 2018 Jun 5;168(11):757-765
pubmed: 29710124
Ann Intern Med. 2015 May 19;162(10):673-81
pubmed: 25984843
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2015 May;24(5):798-809
pubmed: 25716949
Radiology. 2002 Oct;225(1):165-75
pubmed: 12355001
Acad Radiol. 2010 Oct;17(10):1234-41
pubmed: 20619697
Eur J Radiol. 2017 Aug;93:121-127
pubmed: 28668405
Eur J Radiol. 2012 Nov;81(11):3222-8
pubmed: 22579527