ArticleInternational journal of cancer2022
Association of contralateral breast cancer risk with mammographic density defined at higher-than-conventional intensity thresholds.
Article in International journal of cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating mammographic density polygenic risk score for contralateral breast cancer risk prediction.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Bilateral Primary Breast Cancer: Current Evidence and Future Perspectives.Breast cancer (Dove Medical Press) · 2026Review
- Association of breast cancer with quantitative mammographic density measures for women receiving contrast-enhanced mammography.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2024Article
- Causal relationships between breast cancer risk factors based on mammographic features.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2023Article
- Variance of age-specific log incidence decomposition (VALID): a unifying model of measured and unmeasured genetic and non-genetic risks.International journal of epidemiology · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Mammographic dense area (MDA) is an established predictor of future breast cancer risk. Recent studies have found that risk prediction might be improved by redefining MDA in effect at higher-than-conventional intensity thresholds. We assessed whether such higher-intensity MDA measures gave stronger prediction of subsequent contralateral breast cancer (CBC) risk using the Women's Environment, Cancer, and Radiation Epidemiology (WECARE) Study, a population-based CBC case-control study of ≥1 year survivors of unilateral breast cancer diagnosed between 1990 and 2008. Three measures of MDA for the unaffected contralateral breast were made at the conventional intensity threshold ("Cumulus") and at two sequentially higher-intensity thresholds ("Altocumulus" and "Cirrocumulus") using the CUMULUS software and mammograms taken up to 3 years prior to the first breast cancer diagnosis. The measures were fitted separately and together in multivariable-adjusted logistic regression models of CBC (252 CBC cases and 271 unilateral breast cancer controls). The strongest association with CBC was MDA defined using the highest intensity threshold, Cirrocumulus (odds ratio per adjusted SD [OPERA] 1.40, 95% CI 1.13-1.73); and the weakest association was MDA defined at the conventional threshold, Cumulus (1.32, 95% CI 1.05-1.66). In a model fitting the three measures together, the association of CBC with Cirrocumulus was unchanged (1.40, 95% CI 0.97-2.05), and the lower brightness measures did not contribute to the CBC model fit. These results suggest that MDA defined at a high-intensity threshold is a better predictor of CBC risk and has the potential to improve CBC risk stratification beyond conventional MDA measures.
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.