Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29190506›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990)2018

Mammographic density and breast cancer risk in breast screening assessment cases and women with a family history of breast cancer.

Stephen W Duffy, Oliver W E Morrish, Prue C Allgood, Richard Black, Maureen G C Gillan, Paula Willsher, Julie Cooke, Karen A Duncan, Michael J Michell, Hilary M Dobson and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

18 authors.

Stephen W DuffyCentre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK. Electronic address: s.w.duffy@qmul.ac.uk.
Oliver W E MorrishDepartment of Medical Physics and Clinical Engineering, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK. Electronic address: oliver.morrish@addenbrookes.nhs.uk.
Prue C AllgoodCentre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK. Electronic address: prueallgood@hotmail.co.uk.
Richard BlackDepartment of Medical Physics and Clinical Engineering, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK. Electronic address: richard.black@addenbrookes.nhs.uk.
Maureen G C GillanAberdeen Biomedical Imaging Centre, Lilian Sutton Building, Foresterhill, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, UK. Electronic address: maureen.gillan@btinternet.com.
Paula WillsherDepartment of Radiology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK. Electronic address: paula.willsher@addenbrookes.nhs.uk.
Julie CookeJarvis Breast Centre, 60 Soughton Road, Guildford GU1 1LJ, UK. Electronic address: cookejulie@hotmail.com.
Karen A DuncanNorth-East Scotland Breast Screening Centre, Foresterhill Road, Foresterhill, Aberdeen AB25 2XF, UK. Electronic address: karen.duncan@ed.ac.uk.
Michael J MichellBreast Radiology Department, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Denmark Hill, London SE5 9RS, UK. Electronic address: michael.michell@nhs.netHilary.
Hilary M DobsonWest of Scotland Breast Screening Service, Stock Exchange Court, 77 Mandela Place, Glasgow G2 1QT, UK. Electronic address: h.dobson@ed.ac.uk.
Roberta MaroniCentre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK. Electronic address: r.maroni@qmul.ac.uk.
Yit Y LimThe Nightingale Centre & Genesis Prevention Centre, University Hospital of South Manchester, Southmoor Road, Manchester M23 9LT, UK. Electronic address: yit.lim@uhsm.nhs.uk.
Hema N PurushothamanImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Fulham Palace Road, London W6 8RF, UK. Electronic address: hema.purushothaman@imperial.nhs.uk.
Tamara SuarisBreast Screening Unit, St Bartholomew's Hospital, London EC1A 7BE, UK. Electronic address: tamara.suaris@bartshealth.nhs.uk.
Susan M AstleyCentre for Imaging Sciences, Institute of Population Health, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PT, UK. Electronic address: sue.astley@manchester.ac.uk.
Kenneth C YoungNational Co-ordinating Centre for Physics of Mammography, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford GU2 7XX, UK. Electronic address: ken.young@nhs.net.
Lorraine TuckerDepartment of Radiology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK. Electronic address: lorraine.1.tucker@googlemail.com.
Fiona J GilbertDepartment of Radiology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK. Electronic address: fjg28@cam.ac.uk.

Funding

Department of Health 09/22/182
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMammographic density has been shown to be a strong independent predictor of breast cancer and a causative factor in reducing the sensitivity of mammography. There remain questions as to the use of mammographic density information in the context of screening and risk management, and of the association with cancer in populations known to be at increased risk of breast cancer.

aimTo assess the association of breast density with presence of cancer by measuring mammographic density visually as a percentage, and with two automated volumetric methods, Quantra™ and VolparaDensity™.

methodsThe TOMosynthesis with digital MammographY (TOMMY) study of digital breast tomosynthesis in the Breast Screening Programme of the National Health Service (NHS) of the United Kingdom (UK) included 6020 breast screening assessment cases (of whom 1158 had breast cancer) and 1040 screened women with a family history of breast cancer (of whom two had breast cancer). We assessed the association of each measure with breast cancer risk in these populations at enhanced risk, using logistic regression adjusted for age and total breast volume as a surrogate for body mass index (BMI).

resultsAll density measures showed a positive association with presence of cancer and all declined with age. The strongest effect was seen with Volpara absolute density, with a significant 3% (95% CI 1-5%) increase in risk per 10 cm

conclusionsAutomated absolute breast density is a predictor of breast cancer risk in populations at enhanced risk due to either positive mammographic findings or family history. In the screening context, density could be a trigger for more intensive imaging.

Indexed as

Breast DensityAgedBody Mass IndexBreastBreast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsMammographyMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsPrognosisRisk FactorsUnited KingdomAutomated volumetric methodBreast cancer riskBreast cancer screeningDigital breast tomosynthesisFibroglandular volumeMammographic densityQuantraVolpara

Identifiers

PMID29190506
PMCPMC5768323

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.