A novel and automatic mammographic texture resemblance marker is an independent risk factor for breast cancer

TY - JOUR

T1 - A novel and automatic mammographic texture resemblance marker is an independent risk factor for breast cancer

AU - Nielsen, Mads

AU - Karemore, Gopal

AU - Loog, Marco

AU - Raundahl, Jakob

AU - Karssemeijer, N.

AU - Otten, J. D. M.

AU - Karsdal, M. A.

AU - Vachon, C. M.

AU - Christiansen, C.

PY - 2011/8

Y1 - 2011/8

N2 - Objective: We investigated whether breast cancer is predicted by a breast cancer risk mammographic texture resemblance (MTR) marker. Methods: A previously published case-control study included 495 women of which 245 were diagnosed with breast cancer. In baseline mammograms, 2-4 years prior to diagnosis, the following mammographic parameters were analysed for relation to breast cancer risk: (C) categorical parenchymal pattern scores; (R) radiologist's percentage density, (P) computer-based percentage density; (H) computer-based breast cancer risk MTR marker; (E) computer-based hormone replacement treatment MTR marker; and (A) an aggregate of P and H. Results: Density scores, C, R, and P correlated (tau=0.3-0.6); no other pair of scores showed large (tau>0.2) correlation. For the parameters, the odds ratios of future incidence of breast cancer comparing highest to lowest categories (146 and 106 subject respectively) were C: 2.4(1.4-4.2), R: 2.4(1.4-4.1), P: 2.5(1.5-4.2), E: non-significant, H: 4.2(2.4-7.2), and A: 5.6(3.2-9.8). The AUC analysis showed a similarly increasing pattern (C: 0.58±0.02, R: 0.57±0.03, P: 0.60±0.03, H: 0.63±0.02, A: 0.66±0.02). The AUC of the aggregate marker (A) surpasses others significantly except H. HRT-MTR (E) did not significantly identify future cancers or correlate with any other marker. Conclusions: Breast cancer risk MTR marker was independent of density scores and more predictive of risk. The hormone replacement treatment MTR marker did not identify patients at risk.

AB - Objective: We investigated whether breast cancer is predicted by a breast cancer risk mammographic texture resemblance (MTR) marker. Methods: A previously published case-control study included 495 women of which 245 were diagnosed with breast cancer. In baseline mammograms, 2-4 years prior to diagnosis, the following mammographic parameters were analysed for relation to breast cancer risk: (C) categorical parenchymal pattern scores; (R) radiologist's percentage density, (P) computer-based percentage density; (H) computer-based breast cancer risk MTR marker; (E) computer-based hormone replacement treatment MTR marker; and (A) an aggregate of P and H. Results: Density scores, C, R, and P correlated (tau=0.3-0.6); no other pair of scores showed large (tau>0.2) correlation. For the parameters, the odds ratios of future incidence of breast cancer comparing highest to lowest categories (146 and 106 subject respectively) were C: 2.4(1.4-4.2), R: 2.4(1.4-4.1), P: 2.5(1.5-4.2), E: non-significant, H: 4.2(2.4-7.2), and A: 5.6(3.2-9.8). The AUC analysis showed a similarly increasing pattern (C: 0.58±0.02, R: 0.57±0.03, P: 0.60±0.03, H: 0.63±0.02, A: 0.66±0.02). The AUC of the aggregate marker (A) surpasses others significantly except H. HRT-MTR (E) did not significantly identify future cancers or correlate with any other marker. Conclusions: Breast cancer risk MTR marker was independent of density scores and more predictive of risk. The hormone replacement treatment MTR marker did not identify patients at risk.

KW - Faculty of Science

U2 - 10.1016/j.canep.2010.10.011

DO - 10.1016/j.canep.2010.10.011

M3 - Journal article

SN - 1877-7821

VL - 35

SP - 381

EP - 387

JO - Cancer Epidemiology

JF - Cancer Epidemiology

IS - 4

ER -