ArticleBreast cancer research : BCR2017
Breast Tissue Organisation and its Association with Breast Cancer Risk.
Article in Breast cancer research : BCR, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Studies of parenchymal texture added to mammographic breast density and risk of breast cancer: a systematic review of the methods used in the literature.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2022Pooled it
- Breast Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Using Mammographic Data: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Pooled it
- Breast clinical target volume: HU-based glandular CTVs and ESTRO CTVs in modern and historical radiotherapy treatment planning.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2022Article
- Incorporating Breast Anatomy in Computational Phenotyping of Mammographic Parenchymal Patterns for Breast Cancer Risk Estimation.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- A comparison of five methods of measuring mammographic density: a case-control study.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2018Article
- Analysis of breast cancer subtypes and their correlations with receptors and ultrasound.Romanian journal of morphology and embryology = Revue roumaine de morphologie et embryologieArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMammographic percentage density is an established and important risk factor for breast cancer. In this paper, we investigate the role of the spatial organisation of (dense vs. fatty) regions of the breast defined from mammographic images in terms of breast cancer risk.
methodsWe present a novel approach that provides a thorough description of the spatial organisation of different types of tissue in the breast. Each mammogram is first segmented into four regions (fatty, semi-fatty, semi-dense and dense tissue). The spatial relations between each pair of regions is described using so-called forces histograms (FHs) and summarised using functional principal component analysis. In our main analysis, association with case-control status is assessed using a Swedish population-based case-control study (1,170 cases and 1283 controls), for which digitised mammograms were available. We also carried out a small validation study based on digital images.
resultsFor our main analysis, we obtained a global p value of 2×10
conclusionsOur findings are consistent with the notion that fibroglandular and adipose tissue plays a role in breast cancer risk and, more specifically, they suggest that fatty tissue in the lower quadrants and the absence of density in the retromammary space, as shown in mediolateral oblique images, are protective against breast cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.