Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29884207›Full record

ArticleBreast cancer research : BCR2018

Exploring the prediction performance for breast cancer risk based on volumetric mammographic density at different thresholds.

Chao Wang, Adam R Brentnall, Jack Cuzick, Elaine F Harkness, D Gareth Evans, Susan Astley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Breast cancer research : BCR, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

6 authors.

Chao WangCentre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK. chao.wang@qmul.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-7873-0594
Adam R BrentnallCentre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK.
Jack CuzickCentre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK.
Elaine F HarknessCentre for Imaging Science, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Stopford Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PT, UK.
D Gareth EvansDepartment of Genomic Medicine, University of Manchester, St Mary's Hospital, M13 9WL, Manchester, UK.
Susan AstleyCentre for Imaging Science, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Stopford Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PT, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 16891Cancer Research UK C569/A16891Department of Health RP-PG-0707-10031
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe percentage of mammographic dense tissue (PD) defined by pixel value threshold is a well-established risk factor for breast cancer. Recently there has been some evidence to suggest that an increased threshold based on visual assessment could improve risk prediction. It is unknown, however, whether this also applies to volumetric density using digital raw mammograms.

methodTwo case-control studies nested within a screening cohort (ages of participants 46-73 years) from Manchester UK were used. In the first study (317 cases and 947 controls) cases were detected at the first screen; whereas in the second study (318 cases and 935 controls), cases were diagnosed after the initial mammogram. Volpara software was used to estimate dense tissue height at each pixel point, and from these, volumetric and area-based PD were computed at a range of thresholds. Volumetric and area-based PDs were evaluated using conditional logistic regression, and their predictive ability was assessed using the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and matched concordance index (mC).

resultsThe best performing volumetric PD was based on a threshold of 5 mm of dense tissue height (which we refer to as VPD5), and the best areal PD was at a threshold level of 6 mm (which we refer to as APD6), using pooled data and in both studies separately. VPD5 showed a modest improvement in prediction performance compared to the original volumetric PD by Volpara with ΔAIC = 5.90 for the pooled data. APD6, on the other hand, shows much stronger evidence for better prediction performance, with ΔAIC = 14.52 for the pooled data, and mC increased slightly from 0.567 to 0.577.

conclusionThese results suggest that imposing a 5 mm threshold on dense tissue height for volumetric PD could result in better prediction of cancer risk. There is stronger evidence that area-based density with a 6 mm threshold gives better prediction than the original volumetric density metric.

Indexed as

Breast DensityEarly Detection of CancerAdultAgedBreastBreast NeoplasmsCase-Control StudiesFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsMammographyMiddle AgedPrognosisRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsSoftwareBreast cancerBreast densityDigital mammogramRisk predictionThresholding

Identifiers

PMID29884207
PMCPMC5994123

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.