Cancer Causes & Control

, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 481–491 | Cite as

Assessing within-woman changes in mammographic density: a comparison of fully versus semi-automated area-based approaches

  • Marta Cecilia Busana
  • Bianca L. De Stavola
  • Ulla Sovio
  • Jingmei Li
  • Sue Moss
  • Keith Humphreys
  • Isabel dos-Santos-Silva
Original paper

Abstract

Background

Mammographic density (MD) varies throughout a woman’s life. We compared the performance of a fully automated (ImageJ-based) method to the observer-dependent Cumulus approach in the assessment of within-woman changes in MD over time.

Methods

MD was assessed in annual pre-diagnostic films (from age 40 to early 50s) from 313 breast cancer cases and 452 matched controls using Cumulus (left medio-lateral oblique (MLO) readings) and the ImageJ-based method (mean left–right MLO readings). Linear mixed models were used to compare within-woman changes in MD among controls. Associations between individual-specific MD trajectories and breast cancer were examined using conditional logistic regression.

Results

The age-related trajectories predicted by Cumulus and the ImageJ-based method were similar for all MD measures, except that the ImageJ-based method yielded slightly higher (by 2.54 %, 95 % CI 2.07 %, 3.00 %) estimates for percent MD. For both methods, the yearly rate of change in percent MD was twice faster after menopause than before, and higher BMI was associated with lower mean percent MD, but not associated with rate of change. Both methods yielded similar associations of individual-specific MD trajectories with breast cancer risk.

Conclusions

The ImageJ-based method is a valid fully automated alternative to Cumulus for measuring within-woman changes in MD in digitized films. The Age Trial is registered as an International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN24647151.

Keywords

Mammographic density Breast density Breast cancer Pre-menopausal 

Abbreviations

BMI

Body mass index

BC

Breast cancer

CC

Cranio-caudal

CI

Confidence interval

IQR

Inter-quartile range

MD

Mammographic density

MLO

Medio-lateral oblique

PD

Percent density

SD

Standard deviation

Supplementary material

10552_2016_722_MOESM1_ESM.docx (55 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 54 kb)
10552_2016_722_MOESM2_ESM.docx (18 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 17 kb)
10552_2016_722_MOESM3_ESM.docx (14 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (DOCX 13 kb)
10552_2016_722_MOESM4_ESM.docx (17 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (DOCX 17 kb)
10552_2016_722_MOESM5_ESM.docx (17 kb)
Supplementary material 5 (DOCX 16 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    McCormack VA, dos Santos Silva I (2006) Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 15(6):1159–1169. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-06-0034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ, Sun L, Stone J, Fishell E, Jong RA, Hislop G, Chiarelli A, Minkin S, Yaffe MJ (2007) Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 356(3):227–236. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa062790 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Salminen TM, Saarenmaa IE, Heikkila MM, Hakama M (1998) Risk of breast cancer and changes in mammographic parenchymal patterns over time. Acta Oncol (Stockholm, Sweden) 37(6):547–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    van Gils CH, Hendriks JH, Holland R, Karssemeijer N, Otten JD, Straatman H, Verbeek AL (1999) Changes in mammographic breast density and concomitant changes in breast cancer risk. Eur J Cancer Prev 8(6):509–515CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Maskarinec G, Pagano I, Lurie G, Kolonel LN (2006) A longitudinal investigation of mammographic density: the multiethnic cohort. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 15(4):732–739. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0798 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Work ME, Reimers LL, Quante AS, Crew KD, Whiffen A, Terry MB (2014) Changes in mammographic density over time in breast cancer cases and women at high risk for breast cancer. Int J Cancer 135(7):1740–1744. doi:10.1002/ijc.28825 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vachon CM, Pankratz VS, Scott CG, Maloney SD, Ghosh K, Brandt KR, Milanese T, Carston MJ, Sellers TA (2007) Longitudinal trends in mammographic percent density and breast cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 16(5):921–928. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-06-1047 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kerlikowske K, Ichikawa L, Miglioretti DL, Buist DS, Vacek PM, Smith-Bindman R, Yankaskas B, Carney PA, Ballard-Barbash R (2007) Longitudinal measurement of clinical mammographic breast density to improve estimation of breast cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst 99(5):386–395. doi:10.1093/jnci/djk066 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lokate M, Stellato RK, Veldhuis WB, Peeters PH, van Gils CH (2013) Age-related changes in mammographic density and breast cancer risk. Am J Epidemiol 178(1):101–109. doi:10.1093/aje/kws446 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McCormack VA, Highnam R, Perry N, dos Santos Silva I (2007) Comparison of a new and existing method of mammographic density measurement: intramethod reliability and associations with known risk factors. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 16(6):1148–1154. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-0085 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Li J, Szekely L, Eriksson L, Heddson B, Sundbom A, Czene K, Hall P, Humphreys K (2012) High-throughput mammographic-density measurement: a tool for risk prediction of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 14(4):R114. doi:10.1186/bcr3238 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sovio U, Li J, Aitken Z, Humphreys K, Czene K, Moss S, Hall P, McCormack V, Dos-Santos-Silva I (2014) Comparison of fully and semi-automated area-based methods for measuring mammographic density and predicting breast cancer risk. Br J Cancer 110(7):1908–1916. doi:10.1038/bjc.2014.82 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moss S (1999) A trial to study the effect on breast cancer mortality of annual mammographic screening in women starting at age 40. Trial Steering Group. J Med Screen 6(3):144–148CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moss SM, Cuckle H, Evans A, Johns L, Waller M, Bobrow L (2006) Effect of mammographic screening from age 40 years on breast cancer mortality at 10 years’ follow-up: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 368(9552):2053–2060. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69834-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rabe-Hesketh S, Skrondal A (eds) (2012) Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using stata, Volume I: continuous responses. 3rd edn. Stata Press, College Station, TXGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    McCormack VA, Perry NM, Vinnicombe SJ, dos Santos Silva I (2010) Changes and tracking of mammographic density in relation to Pike’s model of breast tissue ageing: a UK longitudinal study. Int J Cancer 127(2):452–461. doi:10.1002/ijc.25053 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Boyd N, Martin L, Chavez S, Gunasekara A, Salleh A, Melnichouk O, Yaffe M, Friedenreich C, Minkin S, Bronskill M (2009) Breast-tissue composition and other risk factors for breast cancer in young women: a cross-sectional study. Lancet Oncol 10(6):569–580. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70078-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kelemen LE, Pankratz VS, Sellers TA, Brandt KR, Wang A, Janney C, Fredericksen ZS, Cerhan JR, Vachon CM (2008) Age-specific trends in mammographic density: the Minnesota Breast Cancer Family Study. Am J Epidemiol 167(9):1027–1036. doi:10.1093/aje/kwn063 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Boyd N, Martin L, Stone J, Little L, Minkin S, Yaffe M (2002) A longitudinal study of the effects of menopause on mammographic features. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 11(10 Pt 1):1048–1053Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shepherd JA, Kerlikowske K, Ma L, Duewer F, Fan B, Wang J, Malkov S, Vittinghoff E, Cummings SR (2011) Volume of mammographic density and risk of breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 20(7):1473–1482. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-1150 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pawluczyk O, Augustine BJ, Yaffe MJ, Rico D, Yang J, Mawdsley GE, Boyd NF (2003) A volumetric method for estimation of breast density on digitized screen-film mammograms. Med Phys 30(3):352–364CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Heine JJ, Carston MJ, Scott CG, Brandt KR, Wu FF, Pankratz VS, Sellers TA, Vachon CM (2008) An automated approach for estimation of breast density. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 17(11):3090–3097. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-08-0170 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Aitken Z, McCormack VA, Highnam RP, Martin L, Gunasekara A, Melnichouk O, Mawdsley G, Peressotti C, Yaffe M, Boyd NF, dos Santos Silva I (2010) Screen-film mammographic density and breast cancer risk: a comparison of the volumetric standard mammogram form and the interactive threshold measurement methods. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 19(2):418–428. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-09-1059 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kallenberg MG, Lokate M, van Gils CH, Karssemeijer N (2011) Automatic breast density segmentation: an integration of different approaches. Phys Med Biol 56(9):2715–2729. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/56/9/005 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Heine JJ, Scott CG, Sellers TA, Brandt KR, Serie DJ, Wu FF, Morton MJ, Schueler BA, Couch FJ, Olson JE, Pankratz VS, Vachon CM (2012) A novel automated mammographic density measure and breast cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst 104(13):1028–1037. doi:10.1093/jnci/djs254 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marta Cecilia Busana
    • 1
  • Bianca L. De Stavola
    • 1
  • Ulla Sovio
    • 1
    • 4
  • Jingmei Li
    • 2
  • Sue Moss
    • 3
  • Keith Humphreys
    • 2
  • Isabel dos-Santos-Silva
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Epidemiology and Population HealthLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical MedicineLondonUK
  2. 2.Department of Medical Epidemiology and BiostatisticsKarolinska InstitutetStockholmSweden
  3. 3.Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive MedicineQueen Mary University of LondonLondonUK
  4. 4.Department of Obstetrics and GynaecologyUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  5. 5.Department of Non-Communicable Disease EpidemiologyLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical MedicineLondonUK

Personalised recommendations