External validation of a mammographic texture marker for breast cancer risk in a case-control study

被引:4
作者
Wang, Chao [1 ,2 ]
Brentnall, Adam R. [3 ]
Mainprize, James [4 ]
Yaffe, Martin [4 ]
Cuzick, Jack [3 ]
Harvey, Jennifer A. [5 ]
机构
[1] Kingston Univ, London, England
[2] St Georges Univ London, Fac Hlth Social Care & Educ, London, England
[3] Queen Mary Univ London, Wolfson Inst Prevent Med, Barts & London Sch Med & Dent, Ctr Canc Prevent, London, England
[4] Sunnybrook Res Inst, Sunnybrook Hlth Sci Ctr, Dept Med Biophys, Toronto, ON, Canada
[5] Univ Virginia, Hlth Sci Ctr, Dept Radiol & Med Imaging, Charlottesville, VA USA
关键词
mammography; risk assessment; texture; validation; breast density; FAMILY-HISTORY; TYRER-CUZICK; WOMEN; DENSITY; PREDICTION; ACCURACY; MODELS;
D O I
10.1117/1.JMI.7.1.014003
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Purpose: The pattern of dense tissue on a mammogram appears to provide additional information than overall density for risk assessment, but there has been little consistency in measures of texture identified. The purpose of this study is thus to validate a mammographic texture feature developed from a previous study in a new setting. Approach: A case-control study (316 invasive cases and 1339 controls) of women in Virginia, USA was used to validate a mammographic texture feature (MMTEXT) derived in a independent previous study. Analysis of predictive ability was adjusted for age, demographic factors, questionnaire risk factors (combined through the Tyrer-Cuzick model), and optionally BI-RADS breast density. Odds ratios per interquartile range (IQ-OR) in controls were estimated. Subgroup analysis assessed heterogeneity by mode of cancer detection (94 not detected by mammography). Results: MMTEXT was not a significant risk factor at 0.05 level after adjusting for classical risk factors (IQ-OR = 1.16, 95%CI 0.92 to 1.46), nor after further adjustment for BI-RADS density (IQ-OR = 0.92, 95%CI 0.76 to 1.10). There was weak evidence that MMTEXT was more predictive for cancers that were not detected by mammography (unadjusted for density: IQ-OR = 1.46, 95%CI 0.99 to 2.15 versus 1.03, 95%CI 0.79 to 1.35, Phet 0.10; adjusted for density: IQ-OR = 1.11, 95%CI 0.70 to 1.77 versus 0.76, 95%CI 0.55 to 1.05, Phet 0.21). Conclusions: MMTEXT is unlikely to be a useful imaging marker for invasive breast cancer risk assessment in women attending mammography screening. Future studies may benefit from a larger sample size to confirm this as well as developing and validating other measures of risk. This negative finding demonstrates the importance of external validation. (C) The Authors. Published by SPIE under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported License.
引用
收藏
页数:15
相关论文
共 30 条
[1]   Assessing Women at High Risk of Breast Cancer: A Review of Risk Assessment Models [J].
Amir, Eitan ;
Freedman, Orit C. ;
Seruga, Bostjan ;
Evans, D. Gareth .
JNCI-JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2010, 102 (10) :680-691
[2]   Clinical and epidemiological issues in mammographic density [J].
Assi, Valentina ;
Warwick, Jane ;
Cuzick, Jack ;
Duffy, Stephen W. .
NATURE REVIEWS CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2012, 9 (01) :33-40
[3]   A comparison of five methods of measuring mammographic density: a case-control study [J].
Astley, Susan M. ;
Harkness, Elaine F. ;
Sergeant, Jamie C. ;
Warwick, Jane ;
Stavrinos, Paula ;
Warren, Ruth ;
Wilson, Mary ;
Beetles, Ursula ;
Gadde, Soujanya ;
Lim, Yit ;
Jain, Anil ;
Bundred, Sara ;
Barr, Nicola ;
Reece, Valerie ;
Brentnall, Adam R. ;
Cuzick, Jack ;
Howell, Tony ;
Evans, D. Gareth .
BREAST CANCER RESEARCH, 2018, 20
[4]   Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer [J].
Berg, Wendie A. ;
Blume, Jeffrey D. ;
Cormack, Jean B. ;
Mendelson, Ellen B. ;
Lehrer, Daniel ;
Bohm-Velez, Marcela ;
Pisano, Etta D. ;
Jong, Roberta A. ;
Evans, W. Phil ;
Morton, Marilyn J. ;
Mahoney, Mary C. ;
Larsen, Linda Hovanessian ;
Barr, Richard G. ;
Farria, Dione M. ;
Marques, Helga S. ;
Boparai, Karan .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2008, 299 (18) :2151-2163
[5]   A Case-Control Study to Add Volumetric or Clinical Mammographic Density into the Tyrer-Cuzick Breast Cancer Risk Model [J].
Brentnall, Adam R. ;
Cohn, Wendy F. ;
Knaus, William A. ;
Yaffe, Martin J. ;
Cuzick, Jack ;
Harvey, Jennifer A. .
JOURNAL OF BREAST IMAGING, 2019, 1 (02) :99-106
[6]   Long-term Accuracy of Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Combining Classic Risk Factors and Breast Density [J].
Brentnall, Adam R. ;
Cuzick, Jack ;
Buist, Diana S. M. ;
Bowles, Erin J. Aiello .
JAMA ONCOLOGY, 2018, 4 (09)
[7]   Mammographic density adds accuracy to both the Tyrer-Cuzick and Gail breast cancer risk models in a prospective UK screening cohort [J].
Brentnall, Adam R. ;
Harkness, Elaine F. ;
Astley, Susan M. ;
Donnelly, Louise S. ;
Stavrinos, Paula ;
Sampson, Sarah ;
Fox, Lynne ;
Sergeant, Jamie C. ;
Harvie, Michelle N. ;
Wilson, Mary ;
Beetles, Ursula ;
Gadde, Soujanya ;
Lim, Yit ;
Jain, Anil ;
Bundred, Sara ;
Barr, Nicola ;
Reece, Valerie ;
Howell, Anthony ;
Cuzick, Jack ;
Evans, D. Gareth R. .
BREAST CANCER RESEARCH, 2015, 17
[8]   Breast cancer risk models: a comprehensive overview of existing models, validation, and clinical applications [J].
Cintolo-Gonzalez, Jessica A. ;
Braun, Danielle ;
Blackford, Amanda L. ;
Mazzola, Emanuele ;
Acar, Ahmet ;
Plichta, Jennifer K. ;
Griffin, Molly ;
Hughes, Kevin S. .
BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT, 2017, 164 (02) :263-284
[9]   THE CALCULATION OF BREAST-CANCER RISK FOR WOMEN WITH A FIRST DEGREE FAMILY HISTORY OF OVARIAN-CANCER [J].
CLAUS, EB ;
RISCH, N ;
THOMPSON, WD .
BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT, 1993, 28 (02) :115-120
[10]  
Duffy S. W., 2003, SCREEN BREAST CANC, P109