Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37880807›Full record

ArticleBreast cancer research : BCR2023

Causal relationships between breast cancer risk factors based on mammographic features.

Zhoufeng Ye, Tuong L Nguyen, Gillian S Dite, Robert J MacInnis, Daniel F Schmidt, Enes Makalic, Osamah M Al-Qershi, Minh Bui, Vivienne F C Esser, James G Dowty and 9 more

Open access · goldAbstract readTwin Study
In one paragraph

Article in Breast cancer research : BCR, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

19 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.

Zhoufeng YeCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3051, Australia.
Tuong L NguyenCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3051, Australia.
Gillian S DiteCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3051, Australia.
Robert J MacInnisCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3051, Australia.
Daniel F SchmidtDepartment of Data Science and AI, Faculty of IT, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Enes MakalicCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3051, Australia.
Osamah M Al-QershiCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3051, Australia.
Minh BuiCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3051, Australia.
Vivienne F C EsserCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3051, Australia.
James G DowtyCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3051, Australia.
Ho N TrinhCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3051, Australia.
Christopher F EvansCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3051, Australia.
Maxine TanElectrical and Computer Systems Engineering Discipline, School of Engineering, Monash University Malaysia, 47500, Sunway City, Malaysia.
Joohon SungDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Division of Genome and Health Big Data, Graduate School of Public Health, Seoul National University, Seoul, 08826, Korea.
Mark A JenkinsCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3051, Australia.
Graham G GilesCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3051, Australia.
Melissa C SoutheyCancer Epidemiology Division, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia.
John L HopperCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3051, Australia.
Shuai LiCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3051, Australia. shuai.li@unimelb.edu.au.
University of Melbourne · AUMonash University · AUCancer Council Victoria · AUGenetic Technologies (Australia) · AUMonash Health · AUSeoul National University · KRUniversity of Oklahoma · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMammogram risk scores based on texture and density defined by different brightness thresholds are associated with breast cancer risk differently and could reveal distinct information about breast cancer risk. We aimed to investigate causal relationships between these intercorrelated mammogram risk scores to determine their relevance to breast cancer aetiology.

methodsWe used digitised mammograms for 371 monozygotic twin pairs, aged 40-70 years without a prior diagnosis of breast cancer at the time of mammography, from the Australian Mammographic Density Twins and Sisters Study. We generated normalised, age-adjusted, and standardised risk scores based on textures using the Cirrus algorithm and on three spatially independent dense areas defined by increasing brightness threshold: light areas, bright areas, and brightest areas. Causal inference was made using the Inference about Causation from Examination of FAmilial CONfounding (ICE FALCON) method.

resultsThe mammogram risk scores were correlated within twin pairs and with each other (r = 0.22-0.81; all P < 0.005). We estimated that 28-92% of the associations between the risk scores could be attributed to causal relationships between the scores, with the rest attributed to familial confounders shared by the scores. There was consistent evidence for positive causal effects: of Cirrus, light areas, and bright areas on the brightest areas (accounting for 34%, 55%, and 85% of the associations, respectively); and of light areas and bright areas on Cirrus (accounting for 37% and 28%, respectively).

conclusionsIn a mammogram, the lighter (less dense) areas have a causal effect on the brightest (highly dense) areas, including through a causal pathway via textural features. These causal relationships help us gain insight into the relative aetiological importance of different mammographic features in breast cancer. For example our findings are consistent with the brightest areas being more aetiologically important than lighter areas for screen-detected breast cancer; conversely, light areas being more aetiologically important for interval breast cancer. Additionally, specific textural features capture aetiologically independent breast cancer risk information from dense areas. These findings highlight the utility of ICE FALCON and family data in decomposing the associations between intercorrelated disease biomarkers into distinct biological pathways.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsAdultAgedAustraliaBreastBreast DensityFemaleHumansMammographyMiddle AgedRisk FactorsBreast cancerCausal inferenceICE FALCONMammographic densityTextural feature

Identifiers

PMID37880807
PMCPMC10598934
OpenAlexW4387949784

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.