Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26689094›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of radiology2016

Utility of relative and absolute measures of mammographic density vs clinical risk factors in evaluating breast cancer risk at time of screening mammography.

Mohamed Abdolell, Kaitlyn M Tsuruda, Christopher B Lightfoot, Jennifer I Payne, Judy S Caines, Sian E Iles

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of radiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Breast density scales: the metric matters.The British journal of radiology · 2017
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Mohamed Abdolell1 Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.
Kaitlyn M Tsuruda2 Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Nova Scotia Health Authority, Halifax, NS, Canada.
Christopher B Lightfoot1 Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.
Jennifer I Payne1 Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.
Judy S Caines1 Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.
Sian E Iles1 Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveVarious clinical risk factors, including high breast density, have been shown to be associated with breast cancer. The utility of using relative and absolute area-based breast density-related measures was evaluated as an alternative to clinical risk factors in cancer risk assessment at the time of screening mammography.

methodsContralateral mediolateral oblique digital mammography images from 392 females with unilateral breast cancer and 817 age-matched controls were analysed. Information on clinical risk factors was obtained from the provincial breast-imaging information system. Breast density-related measures were assessed using a fully automated breast density measurement software. Multivariable logistic regression was conducted, and area under the receiver-operating characteristic (AUROC) curve was used to evaluate the performance of three cancer risk models: the first using only clinical risk factors, the second using only density-related measures and the third using both clinical risk factors and density-related measures.

resultsThe risk factor-based model generated an AUROC of 0.535, while the model including only breast density-related measures generated a significantly higher AUROC of 0.622 (p < 0.001). The third combined model generated an AUROC of 0.632 and performed significantly better than the risk factor model (p < 0.001) but not the density-related measures model (p = 0.097).

conclusionDensity-related measures from screening mammograms at the time of screen may be superior predictors of cancer compared with clinical risk factors. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Breast cancer risk models based on density-related measures alone can outperform risk models based on clinical factors. Such models may support the development of personalized breast-screening protocols.

Indexed as

AdultAgedArea Under CurveBreast DensityBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMammary Glands, HumanMiddle AgedRadiographyRisk AssessmentRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID26689094
PMCPMC4986486

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.