Does the prediction of breast cancer improve using a combination of mammographic density measures compared to individual measures alone?

Joseph Ryan Wong Sik Hee; Elaine F. Harkness; Soujanya Gadde; Yit Y. Lim; Anthony J. Maxwell; D. Gareth Evans; Anthony Howell; Susan M. Astley

doi:10.1117/12.2254291

3 March 2017 Does the prediction of breast cancer improve using a combination of mammographic density measures compared to individual measures alone?

Joseph Ryan Wong Sik Hee, Elaine F. Harkness, Soujanya Gadde, Yit Y. Lim, Anthony J. Maxwell, D. Gareth Evans, Anthony Howell, Susan M. Astley

Author Affiliations +

Proceedings Volume 10134, Medical Imaging 2017: Computer-Aided Diagnosis; 101342P (2017) https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2254291
Event: SPIE Medical Imaging, 2017, Orlando, Florida, United States

Abstract

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.

Citation Download Citation

Joseph Ryan Wong Sik Hee, Elaine F. Harkness, Soujanya Gadde, Yit Y. Lim, Anthony J. Maxwell, D. Gareth Evans, Anthony Howell, and Susan M. Astley "Does the prediction of breast cancer improve using a combination of mammographic density measures compared to individual measures alone?", Proc. SPIE 10134, Medical Imaging 2017: Computer-Aided Diagnosis, 101342P (3 March 2017); https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2254291

ACCESS THE FULL ARTICLE

INSTITUTIONAL
Select your institution to access the SPIE Digital Library.

SELECT YOUR INSTITUTION

PERSONAL
Sign in with your SPIE account to access your personal subscriptions or to use specific features such as save to my library, sign up for alerts, save searches, etc.

PERSONAL SIGN IN

No SPIE Account? Create one

;

PURCHASE THIS CONTENT

SUBSCRIBE TO DIGITAL LIBRARY

50 downloads per 1-year subscription

Members: $195

Non-members: $335 ADD TO CART

25 downloads per 1 - year subscription

Members: $145

Non-members: $250 ADD TO CART

PURCHASE SINGLE ARTICLE