The association of age at menarche and adult height with mammographic density in the International Consortium of Mammographic Density.

BACKGROUND: Early age at menarche and tall stature are associated with increased breast cancer risk. We examined whether these associations were also positively associated with mammographic density, a strong marker of breast cancer risk. METHODS: Participants were 10,681 breast-cancer-free women from 22 countries in the International Consortium of Mammographic Density, each with centrally assessed mammographic density and a common set of epidemiologic data. Study periods for the 27 studies ranged from 1987 to 2014. Multi-level linear regression models estimated changes in square-root per cent density (√PD) and dense area (√DA) associated with age at menarche and adult height in pooled analyses and population-specific meta-analyses. Models were adjusted for age at mammogram, body mass index, menopausal status, hormone therapy use, mammography view and type, mammographic density assessor, parity and height/age at menarche. RESULTS: In pooled analyses, later age at menarche was associated with higher per cent density (ß√PD = 0.023 SE = 0.008, P = 0.003) and larger dense area (ß√DA = 0.032 SE = 0.010, P = 0.002). Taller women had larger dense area (ß√DA = 0.069 SE = 0.028, P = 0.012) and higher per cent density (ß√PD = 0.044, SE = 0.023, P = 0.054), although the observed effect on per cent density depended upon the adjustment used for body size. Similar overall effect estimates were observed in meta-analyses across population groups. CONCLUSIONS: In one of the largest international studies to date, later age at menarche was positively associated with mammographic density. This is in contrast to its association with breast cancer risk, providing little evidence of mediation. Increased height was also positively associated with mammographic density, particularly dense area. These results suggest a complex relationship between growth and development, mammographic density and breast cancer risk. Future studies should evaluate the potential mediation of the breast cancer effects of taller stature through absolute breast density.

The combined effect of mammographic texture and density on breast cancer risk: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Texture patterns have been shown to improve breast cancer risk segregation in addition to area-based mammographic density. The additional value of texture pattern scores on top of volumetric mammographic density measures in a large screening cohort has never been studied. METHODS: Volumetric mammographic density and texture pattern scores were assessed automatically for the first available digital mammography (DM) screening examination of 51,400 women (50-75 years of age) participating in the Dutch biennial breast cancer screening program between 2003 and 2011. The texture assessment method was developed in a previous study and validated in the current study. Breast cancer information was obtained from the screening registration system and through linkage with the Netherlands Cancer Registry. All screen-detected breast cancers diagnosed at the first available digital screening examination were excluded. During a median follow-up period of 4.2 (interquartile range (IQR) 2.0-6.2) years, 301 women were diagnosed with breast cancer. The associations between texture pattern scores, volumetric breast density measures and breast cancer risk were determined using Cox proportional hazard analyses. Discriminatory performance was assessed using c-indices. RESULTS: The median age of the women at the time of the first available digital mammography examination was 56 years (IQR 51-63). Texture pattern scores were positively associated with breast cancer risk (hazard ratio (HR) 3.16 (95% CI 2.16-4.62) (p value for trend <0.001), for quartile (Q) 4 compared to Q1). The c-index of texture was 0.61 (95% CI 0.57-0.64). Dense volume and percentage dense volume showed positive associations with breast cancer risk (HR 1.85 (95% CI 1.32-2.59) (p value for trend <0.001) and HR 2.17 (95% CI 1.51-3.12) (p value for trend <0.001), respectively, for Q4 compared to Q1). When adding texture measures to models with dense volume or percentage dense volume, c-indices increased from 0.56 (95% CI 0.53-0.59) to 0.62 (95% CI 0.58-0.65) (p < 0.001) and from 0.58 (95% CI 0.54-0.61) to 0.60 (95% CI 0.57-0.63) (p = 0.054), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Deep-learning-based texture pattern scores, measured automatically on digital mammograms, are associated with breast cancer risk, independently of volumetric mammographic density, and augment the capacity to discriminate between future breast cancer and non-breast cancer cases.

The effect of volumetric breast density on the risk of screen-detected and interval breast cancers: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In the light of the breast density legislation in the USA, it is important to know a woman's breast cancer risk, but particularly her risk of a tumor that is not detected through mammographic screening (interval cancer). Therefore, we examined the associations of automatically measured volumetric breast density with screen-detected and interval cancer risk, separately. METHODS: Volumetric breast measures were assessed automatically using Volpara version 1.5.0 (Matakina, New Zealand) for the first available digital mammography (DM) examination of 52,814 women (age 50 - 75 years) participating in the Dutch biennial breast cancer screening program between 2003 and 2011. Breast cancer information was obtained from the screening registration system and through linkage with the Netherlands Cancer Registry. We excluded all screen-detected breast cancers diagnosed as a result of the first digital screening examination. During a median follow-up period of 4.2 (IQR 2.0-6.2) years, 523 women were diagnosed with breast cancer of which 299 were screen-detected and 224 were interval breast cancers. The associations between volumetric breast measures and breast cancer risk were determined using Cox proportional hazards analyses. RESULTS: Percentage dense volume was found to be positively associated with both interval and screen-detected breast cancers (hazard ratio (HR) 8.37 (95% CI 4.34-16.17) and HR 1.39 (95% CI 0.82-2.36), respectively, for Volpara density grade category (VDG) 4 compared to VDG1 (p for heterogeneity < 0.001)). Dense volume (DV) was also found to be positively associated with both interval and screen-detected breast cancers (HR 4.92 (95% CI 2.98-8.12) and HR 2.30 (95% CI 1.39-3.80), respectively, for VDG-like category (C)4 compared to C1 (p for heterogeneity = 0.041)). The association between percentage dense volume categories and interval breast cancer risk (HR 8.37) was not significantly stronger than the association between absolute dense volume categories and interval breast cancer risk (HR 4.92). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that both absolute dense volume and percentage dense volume are strong markers of breast cancer risk, but that they are even stronger markers for predicting the occurrence of tumors that are not detected during mammography breast cancer screening.

Mammographic density and ageing: A collaborative pooled analysis of cross-sectional data from 22 countries worldwide.

BACKGROUND: Mammographic density (MD) is one of the strongest breast cancer risk factors. Its age-related characteristics have been studied in women in western countries, but whether these associations apply to women worldwide is not known. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We examined cross-sectional differences in MD by age and menopausal status in over 11,000 breast-cancer-free women aged 35-85 years, from 40 ethnicity- and location-specific population groups across 22 countries in the International Consortium on Mammographic Density (ICMD). MD was read centrally using a quantitative method (Cumulus) and its square-root metrics were analysed using meta-analysis of group-level estimates and linear regression models of pooled data, adjusted for body mass index, reproductive factors, mammogram view, image type, and reader. In all, 4,534 women were premenopausal, and 6,481 postmenopausal, at the time of mammography. A large age-adjusted difference in percent MD (PD) between post- and premenopausal women was apparent (-0.46 cm [95% CI: -0.53, -0.39]) and appeared greater in women with lower breast cancer risk profiles; variation across population groups due to heterogeneity (I2) was 16.5%. Among premenopausal women, the √PD difference per 10-year increase in age was -0.24 cm (95% CI: -0.34, -0.14; I2 = 30%), reflecting a compositional change (lower dense area and higher non-dense area, with no difference in breast area). In postmenopausal women, the corresponding difference in √PD (-0.38 cm [95% CI: -0.44, -0.33]; I2 = 30%) was additionally driven by increasing breast area. The study is limited by different mammography systems and its cross-sectional rather than longitudinal nature. CONCLUSIONS: Declines in MD with increasing age are present premenopausally, continue postmenopausally, and are most pronounced over the menopausal transition. These effects were highly consistent across diverse groups of women worldwide, suggesting that they result from an intrinsic biological, likely hormonal, mechanism common to women. If cumulative breast density is a key determinant of breast cancer risk, younger ages may be the more critical periods for lifestyle modifications aimed at breast density and breast cancer risk reduction.

Volumetric breast density affects performance of digital screening mammography.

PURPOSE: To determine to what extent automatically measured volumetric mammographic density influences screening performance when using digital mammography (DM). METHODS: We collected a consecutive series of 111,898 DM examinations (2003-2011) from one screening unit of the Dutch biennial screening program (age 50-75 years). Volumetric mammographic density was automatically assessed using Volpara. We determined screening performance measures for four density categories comparable to the American College of Radiology (ACR) breast density categories. RESULTS: Of all the examinations, 21.6% were categorized as density category 1 ('almost entirely fatty') and 41.5, 28.9, and 8.0% as category 2-4 ('extremely dense'), respectively. We identified 667 screen-detected and 234 interval cancers. Interval cancer rates were 0.7, 1.9, 2.9, and 4.4‰ and false positive rates were 11.2, 15.1, 18.2, and 23.8‰ for categories 1-4, respectively (both p-trend < 0.001). The screening sensitivity, calculated as the proportion of screen-detected among the total of screen-detected and interval tumors, was lower in higher density categories: 85.7, 77.6, 69.5, and 61.0% for categories 1-4, respectively (p-trend < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Volumetric mammographic density, automatically measured on digital mammograms, impacts screening performance measures along the same patterns as established with ACR breast density categories. Since measuring breast density fully automatically has much higher reproducibility than visual assessment, this automatic method could help with implementing density-based supplemental screening.

Mammographic density assessed on paired raw and processed digital images and on paired screen-film and digital images across three mammography systems.

BACKGROUND: Inter-women and intra-women comparisons of mammographic density (MD) are needed in research, clinical and screening applications; however, MD measurements are influenced by mammography modality (screen film/digital) and digital image format (raw/processed). We aimed to examine differences in MD assessed on these image types. METHODS: We obtained 1294 pairs of images saved in both raw and processed formats from Hologic and General Electric (GE) direct digital systems and a Fuji computed radiography (CR) system, and 128 screen-film and processed CR-digital pairs from consecutive screening rounds. Four readers performed Cumulus-based MD measurements (n = 3441), with each image pair read by the same reader. Multi-level models of square-root percent MD were fitted, with a random intercept for woman, to estimate processed-raw MD differences. RESULTS: Breast area did not differ in processed images compared with that in raw images, but the percent MD was higher, due to a larger dense area (median 28.5 and 25.4 cm2 respectively, mean √dense area difference 0.44 cm (95% CI: 0.36, 0.52)). This difference in √dense area was significant for direct digital systems (Hologic 0.50 cm (95% CI: 0.39, 0.61), GE 0.56 cm (95% CI: 0.42, 0.69)) but not for Fuji CR (0.06 cm (95% CI: -0.10, 0.23)). Additionally, within each system, reader-specific differences varied in magnitude and direction (p < 0.001). Conversion equations revealed differences converged to zero with increasing dense area. MD differences between screen-film and processed digital on the subsequent screening round were consistent with expected time-related MD declines. CONCLUSIONS: MD was slightly higher when measured on processed than on raw direct digital mammograms. Comparisons of MD on these image formats should ideally control for this non-constant and reader-specific difference.

The effect of out-of-pocket costs and financial rewards in a discrete choice experiment: an application to lifestyle programs.

BACKGROUND: Both out-of-pocket costs and financial rewards can be used to influence health related behavior. However, it is unclear which of these two has a larger effect on health related behavior. The aim of this study was to explore the possible difference in effect size between out-of-pocket costs and financial rewards on the willingness of diabetes mellitus type 2 (DM2) patients to participate in a lifestyle program. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) questionnaire was sent to 767 DM2 patients in a geographically defined area (De Leidsche Rijn, Utrecht) in The Netherlands and completed by 206 of them. The questionnaire comprised of 18 choice tasks of which 9 contained a financial reward for lifestyle program completion, while the other 9 included out-of-pocket costs for program participation. In a second version of the questionnaire, the order of out-of-pocket cost and financial reward choice tasks was counterbalanced to reduce bias with respect to the position (first or second) of the two types of choice tasks. Panel-mixed-multinomial-logit models were used for data analysis. RESULTS: Increasing out-of-pocket costs were associated with a decreasing willingness to participate in a lifestyle program and, contrary to our expectations, increasing financial rewards were also associated with a decreasing willingness to participate in a lifestyle program. In addition, this willingness to participate changed to the same extent for both increasing out-of-pocket costs and increasing financial rewards. CONCLUSIONS: As expected, increasing out-of-pocket costs may prevent people from deciding to participate in a lifestyle program. However, offering a financial reward to persuade people to participate in a lifestyle program, may result in decreasing willingness to participate in a lifestyle program as well.

International Consortium on Mammographic Density: Methodology and population diversity captured across 22 countries.

Mammographic density (MD) is a quantitative trait, measurable in all women, and is among the strongest markers of breast cancer risk. The population-based epidemiology of MD has revealed genetic, lifestyle and societal/environmental determinants, but studies have largely been conducted in women with similar westernized lifestyles living in countries with high breast cancer incidence rates. To benefit from the heterogeneity in risk factors and their combinations worldwide, we created an International Consortium on Mammographic Density (ICMD) to pool individual-level epidemiological and MD data from general population studies worldwide. ICMD aims to characterize determinants of MD more precisely, and to evaluate whether they are consistent across populations worldwide. We included 11755 women, from 27 studies in 22 countries, on whom individual-level risk factor data were pooled and original mammographic images were re-read for ICMD to obtain standardized comparable MD data. In the present article, we present (i) the rationale for this consortium; (ii) characteristics of the studies and women included; and (iii) study methodology to obtain comparable MD data from original re-read films. We also highlight the risk factor heterogeneity captured by such an effort and, thus, the unique insight the pooled study promises to offer through wider exposure ranges, different confounding structures and enhanced power for sub-group analyses.