Studying the association Between longitudinal non-dense breast tissue and breast cancer risk: a joint modelling approach.

Conflicting results have appeared in the literature on whether the amount of non-dense, adipose tissue in the breast is a risk factor or a protective factor for breast cancer, and biological hypotheses supporting both have been proposed. We suggest here that limitations in study design and statistical methodology could potentially explain the inconsistent results. Specifically, we exploit recent advances in methodology and software developed for the joint analysis of multiple longitudinal outcomes and time-to-event data to jointly analyze dense and non-dense tissue trajectories and the risk of breast cancer in a large, Swedish, screening cohort. We also perform extensive sensitivity analyses by mimicking analyses/designs of previously published studies, e.g. ignoring available longitudinal data. Overall, we did not find strong evidence supporting an association between non-dense tissue and the risk of incident breast cancer. We hypothesize that (1) previous studies have not been able to isolate the effect of non-dense tissue from dense tissue or adipose tissue elsewhere in the body, that (2) estimates of the effect of non-dense tissue on risk are strongly sensitive to modeling assumptions, or that (3) the effect size of non-dense tissue on breast cancer risk is likely to be small/not clinically relevant.

Studying the association between longitudinal mammographic density measurements and breast cancer risk: a joint modelling approach.

BACKGROUND: Researchers have suggested that longitudinal trajectories of mammographic breast density (MD) can be used to understand changes in breast cancer (BC) risk over a woman's lifetime. Some have suggested, based on biological arguments, that the cumulative trajectory of MD encapsulates the risk of BC across time. Others have tried to connect changes in MD to the risk of BC. METHODS: To summarize the MD-BC association, we jointly model longitudinal trajectories of MD and time to diagnosis using data from a large ([Formula: see text]) mammography cohort of Swedish women aged 40-80 years. Five hundred eighteen women were diagnosed with BC during follow-up. We fitted three joint models (JMs) with different association structures; Cumulative, current value and slope, and current value association structures. RESULTS: All models showed evidence of an association between MD trajectory and BC risk ([Formula: see text] for current value of MD, [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] for current value and slope of MD respectively, and [Formula: see text] for cumulative value of MD). Models with cumulative association structure and with current value and slope association structure had better goodness of fit than a model based only on current value. The JM with current value and slope structure suggested that a decrease in MD may be associated with an increased (instantaneous) BC risk. It is possible that this is because of increased screening sensitivity rather than being related to biology. CONCLUSION: We argue that a JM with a cumulative association structure may be the most appropriate/biologically relevant model in this context.

Influence of mammographic density and compressed breast thickness on true mammographic sensitivity: a cohort study.

Understanding the detectability of breast cancer using mammography is important when considering nation-wide screening programmes. Although the role of imaging settings on image quality has been studied extensively, their role in detectability of cancer at a population level is less well studied. We wish to quantify the association between mammographic screening sensitivity and various imaging parameters. Using a novel approach applied to a population-based breast cancer screening cohort, we specifically focus on sensitivity as defined in the classical diagnostic testing literature, as opposed to the screen-detected cancer rate, which is often used as a measure of sensitivity for monitoring and evaluating breast cancer screening. We use a natural history approach to model the presence and size of latent tumors at risk of detection at mammography screening, and the screening sensitivity is modeled as a logistic function of tumor size. With this approach we study the influence of compressed breast thickness, x-ray exposure, and compression pressure, in addition to (percent) breast density, on the screening test sensitivity. When adjusting for all screening parameters in addition to latent tumor size, we find that percent breast density and compressed breast thickness are statistically significant factors for the detectability of breast cancer. A change in breast density from 6.6 to 33.5% (the inter-quartile range) reduced the odds of detection by 61% (95% CI 48-71). Similarly, a change in compressed breast thickness from 46 to 66 mm reduced the odds by 42% (95% CI 21-57). The true sensitivity of mammography, defined as the probability that an examination leads to a positive result if a tumour is present in the breast, is associated with compressed breast thickness after accounting for mammographic density and tumour size. This can be used to guide studies of setups aimed at improving lesion detection. Compressed breast thickness-in addition to breast density-should be considered when assigning complementary screening modalities and personalized screening intervals.