Examination of fully automated mammographic density measures using LIBRA and breast cancer risk in a cohort of 21,000 non-Hispanic white women.

Laurel A Habel, Stacey E Alexeeff, Ninah Achacoso, Vignesh A Arasu, Aimilia Gastounioti, Lawrence Gerstley, Robert J Klein, Rhea Y Liang, Jafi A Lipson, Walter Mankowski, Laurie R Margolies, Joseph H Rothstein, Daniel L Rubin, Li Shen, Adriana Sistig, Xiaoyu Song, Marvella A Villaseñor, Mark Westley, Alice S Whittemore, Martin J Yaffe, Pei Wang, Despina Kontos, Weiva Sieh
{"title":"Examination of fully automated mammographic density measures using LIBRA and breast cancer risk in a cohort of 21,000 non-Hispanic white women.","authors":"Laurel A Habel, Stacey E Alexeeff, Ninah Achacoso, Vignesh A Arasu, Aimilia Gastounioti, Lawrence Gerstley, Robert J Klein, Rhea Y Liang, Jafi A Lipson, Walter Mankowski, Laurie R Margolies, Joseph H Rothstein, Daniel L Rubin, Li Shen, Adriana Sistig, Xiaoyu Song, Marvella A Villaseñor, Mark Westley, Alice S Whittemore, Martin J Yaffe, Pei Wang, Despina Kontos, Weiva Sieh","doi":"10.1186/s13058-023-01685-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Breast density is strongly associated with breast cancer risk. Fully automated quantitative density assessment methods have recently been developed that could facilitate large-scale studies, although data on associations with long-term breast cancer risk are limited. We examined LIBRA assessments and breast cancer risk and compared results to prior assessments using Cumulus, an established computer-assisted method requiring manual thresholding.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a cohort study among 21,150 non-Hispanic white female participants of the Research Program in Genes, Environment and Health of Kaiser Permanente Northern California who were 40-74 years at enrollment, followed for up to 10 years, and had archived processed screening mammograms acquired on Hologic or General Electric full-field digital mammography (FFDM) machines and prior Cumulus density assessments available for analysis. Dense area (DA), non-dense area (NDA), and percent density (PD) were assessed using LIBRA software. Cox regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for breast cancer associated with DA, NDA and PD modeled continuously in standard deviation (SD) increments, adjusting for age, mammogram year, body mass index, parity, first-degree family history of breast cancer, and menopausal hormone use. We also examined differences by machine type and breast view.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The adjusted HRs for breast cancer associated with each SD increment of DA, NDA and PD were 1.36 (95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.57), 0.85 (0.77-0.93) and 1.44 (1.26-1.66) for LIBRA and 1.44 (1.33-1.55), 0.81 (0.74-0.89) and 1.54 (1.34-1.77) for Cumulus, respectively. LIBRA results were generally similar by machine type and breast view, although associations were strongest for Hologic machines and mediolateral oblique views. Results were also similar during the first 2 years, 2-5 years and 5-10 years after the baseline mammogram.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Associations with breast cancer risk were generally similar for LIBRA and Cumulus density measures and were sustained for up to 10 years. These findings support the suitability of fully automated LIBRA assessments on processed FFDM images for large-scale research on breast density and cancer risk.</p>","PeriodicalId":9283,"journal":{"name":"Breast Cancer Research : BCR","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10405373/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Breast Cancer Research : BCR","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-023-01685-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: Breast density is strongly associated with breast cancer risk. Fully automated quantitative density assessment methods have recently been developed that could facilitate large-scale studies, although data on associations with long-term breast cancer risk are limited. We examined LIBRA assessments and breast cancer risk and compared results to prior assessments using Cumulus, an established computer-assisted method requiring manual thresholding.

Methods: We conducted a cohort study among 21,150 non-Hispanic white female participants of the Research Program in Genes, Environment and Health of Kaiser Permanente Northern California who were 40-74 years at enrollment, followed for up to 10 years, and had archived processed screening mammograms acquired on Hologic or General Electric full-field digital mammography (FFDM) machines and prior Cumulus density assessments available for analysis. Dense area (DA), non-dense area (NDA), and percent density (PD) were assessed using LIBRA software. Cox regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for breast cancer associated with DA, NDA and PD modeled continuously in standard deviation (SD) increments, adjusting for age, mammogram year, body mass index, parity, first-degree family history of breast cancer, and menopausal hormone use. We also examined differences by machine type and breast view.

Results: The adjusted HRs for breast cancer associated with each SD increment of DA, NDA and PD were 1.36 (95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.57), 0.85 (0.77-0.93) and 1.44 (1.26-1.66) for LIBRA and 1.44 (1.33-1.55), 0.81 (0.74-0.89) and 1.54 (1.34-1.77) for Cumulus, respectively. LIBRA results were generally similar by machine type and breast view, although associations were strongest for Hologic machines and mediolateral oblique views. Results were also similar during the first 2 years, 2-5 years and 5-10 years after the baseline mammogram.

Conclusion: Associations with breast cancer risk were generally similar for LIBRA and Cumulus density measures and were sustained for up to 10 years. These findings support the suitability of fully automated LIBRA assessments on processed FFDM images for large-scale research on breast density and cancer risk.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在21000名非西班牙裔白人女性队列中,使用LIBRA和乳腺癌症风险检查全自动乳房X光密度测量。
背景:乳腺密度与乳腺癌症风险密切相关。最近开发了全自动定量密度评估方法,可以促进大规模研究,尽管与长期癌症风险相关的数据有限。我们检查了LIBRA评估和癌症风险,并将结果与之前使用Cumulus进行的评估进行了比较,Cumulus是一种需要手动阈值的计算机辅助方法。方法:我们对21150名非西班牙裔白人女性参与者进行了一项队列研究,她们是北加利福尼亚州凯撒永久医院基因、环境和健康研究项目的参与者,年龄在40-74岁之间,随访长达10年,并存档了在Hologic或General Electric全场数字乳房X光摄影(FFDM)机上获得的经处理的筛查乳房X光照片和可用于分析的先前Cumulus密度评估。使用LIBRA软件评估密集区(DA)、非密集区(NDA)和百分比密度(PD)。Cox回归用于估计癌症与DA、NDA和PD相关的风险比(HR),这些风险比以标准差(SD)增量连续建模,并根据年龄、乳房X光检查年份、体重指数、产次、癌症一级家族史和更年期激素使用进行调整。我们还检查了机器类型和胸部视图的差异。结果:与DA、NDA和PD的每个SD增量相关的癌症乳腺癌的校正HR,LIBRA分别为1.36(95%置信区间,1.18-1.57)、0.85(0.77-0.93)和1.44(1.26-1.66),Cumulus分别为1.44(1.33-1.55)、0.81(0.74-0.89)和1.54(1.34-1.77)。LIBRA的结果在机器类型和胸部视图方面大体相似,尽管Hologic机器和中斜视的相关性最强。在基线乳房X光检查后的前2年、2-5年和5-10年,结果也相似。结论:LIBRA和Cumulus密度测量与癌症风险的相关性通常相似,并持续长达10年。这些发现支持对处理后的FFDM图像进行全自动LIBRA评估,以用于乳腺密度和癌症风险的大规模研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
siRNA treatment targeting integrin α11 overexpressed via EZH2-driven axis inhibits drug-resistant breast cancer progression. Quantitative characterization of breast lesions and normal fibroglandular tissue using compartmentalized diffusion-weighted model: comparison of intravoxel incoherent motion and restriction spectrum imaging AMD1 promotes breast cancer aggressiveness via a spermidine-eIF5A hypusination-TCF4 axis NSABP FB-10: a phase Ib/II trial evaluating ado-trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) with neratinib in women with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer Receptor conversion and survival in breast cancer liver metastases.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1