Trends in Clinical Breast Density Assessment From the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium

被引:25
|
作者
Sprague, B. L. [1 ,2 ]
Kerlikowske, K. [3 ,4 ,5 ]
Bowles, E. J. A. [6 ]
Rauscher, G. H. [7 ]
Lee, C. I. [8 ,9 ]
Tosteson, A. N. A. [10 ,11 ]
Miglioretti, D. L. [6 ,12 ]
机构
[1] Univ Vermont, Dept Surg, Canc Ctr, Burlington, VT 05405 USA
[2] Univ Vermont, Dept Radiol, Canc Ctr, Burlington, VT 05405 USA
[3] Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Med, Dept Vet Affairs, San Francisco, CA USA
[4] Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Epidemiol & Biostat, Dept Vet Affairs, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
[5] Univ Calif San Francisco, Gen Internal Med Sect, Dept Vet Affairs, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
[6] Kaiser Permanente Washington, Hlth Res Inst, Seattle, WA USA
[7] Univ Illinois, Dept Epidemiol & Biostat, Sch Publ Hlth, Chicago, IL USA
[8] Univ Washington, Sch Med, Dept Radiol, Seattle, WA 98195 USA
[9] Hutchinson Inst Canc Outcomes Res, Seattle, WA USA
[10] Geisel Sch Med Dartmouth, Dartmouth Inst Hlth Policy & Clin Practice, Lebanon, NH USA
[11] Geisel Sch Med Dartmouth, Norris Cotton Canc Ctr, Lebanon, NH USA
[12] Univ Calif Davis, Sch Med, Dept Publ Hlth Sci, Div Biostat, Davis, CA 95616 USA
来源
基金
美国医疗保健研究与质量局;
关键词
SYNTHESIZED 2-DIMENSIONAL MAMMOGRAPHY; BI-RADS DENSITY; 5TH EDITION; TOMOSYNTHESIS; PERFORMANCE; GUIDELINES; RISK; 4TH;
D O I
10.1093/jnci/djy210
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Changes to mammography practice, including revised Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) density classification guidelines and implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), may impact clinical breast density assessment. We investigated temporal trends in clinical breast density assessment among 2 990 291 digital mammography (DM) screens and 221 063 DBT screens interpreted by 722 radiologists from 144 facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. After age-standardization, 46.3% (95% CI = 44.1% to 48.6%) of DM screens were assessed as dense (heterogeneously/extremely dense) during the BI-RADS 4th edition era (2005-2013), compared to 46.5% (95% CI = 43.8% to 49.1%) during the 5th edition era (2014-2016) (P=.93 from two-sided generalized score test). Among DBT screens in the BI-RADS 5th edition era, 45.8% (95% CI = 42.0% to 49.7%) were assessed as dense (P=.77 from two-sided generalized score test) compared to 46.5% (95% CI = 43.8% to 49.1%) dense on DM in BI-RADS 5th edition era. Results were similar when examining all four density categories and age subgroups. Clinicians, researchers, and policymakers may reasonably expect stable density distributions across screened populations despite changes to the BI-RADS guidelines and implementation of DBT.
引用
收藏
页码:629 / 632
页数:4
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Relationship Between Mammographic Density and Breast Cancer Death in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium
    Gierach, Gretchen L.
    Ichikawa, Laura
    Kerlikowske, Karla
    Brinton, Louise A.
    Farhat, Ghada N.
    Vacek, Pamela M.
    Weaver, Donald L.
    Schairer, Catherine
    Taplin, Stephen H.
    Sherman, Mark E.
    JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2012, 104 (16) : 1218 - 1227
  • [2] The contribution of common breast cancer susceptibility loci to the breast density and breast cancer association and the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) risk model
    Vachon, Celine M.
    Pankratz, V. Shane
    Scott, Christopher G.
    Haeberle, Lothar
    Ziv, Elad
    Jensen, Matthew R.
    Brandt, Kathleen R.
    Whaley, Dana H.
    Olson, Janet E.
    Heusinger, Katharina
    Hack, Carolin C.
    Jud, Sebastian M.
    Beckmann, Matthias W.
    Tice, Jeffrey A.
    Purrington, Kristen S.
    Sellers, Thomas A.
    Kerlikowske, Karla
    Fasching, Peter A.
    Couch, Fergus J.
    CANCER RESEARCH, 2014, 74 (19)
  • [3] Validation of the breast cancer surveillance consortium model of breast cancer risk
    Jeffrey A. Tice
    Michael C. S. Bissell
    Diana L. Miglioretti
    Charlotte C. Gard
    Garth H. Rauscher
    Firas M. Dabbous
    Karla Kerlikowske
    Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 2019, 175 : 519 - 523
  • [4] Validation of the breast cancer surveillance consortium model of breast cancer risk
    Tice, Jeffrey A.
    Bissell, Michael C. S.
    Miglioretti, Diana L.
    Gard, Charlotte C.
    Rauscher, Garth H.
    Dabbous, Firas M.
    Kerlikowske, Karla
    BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT, 2019, 175 (02) : 519 - 523
  • [5] Extending the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium Model of Invasive Breast Cancer
    Gard, Charlotte C.
    Tice, Jeffrey A.
    Miglioretti, Diana L.
    Sprague, Brian L.
    Bissell, Michael C. S.
    Henderson, Louise M.
    Kerlikowske, Karla
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2024, 42 (07) : 779 - 789
  • [6] Women's Breast Cancer Screening Confidence by Screening Modality and Breast Density: A Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium Survey Study
    Tosteson, Anna N. A.
    Schifferdecker, Karen E.
    Smith, Rebecca E.
    Wernli, Karen J.
    Zhao, Wenyan
    Kaplan, Celia P.
    Buist, Diana S. M.
    Henderson, Louise M.
    Sprague, Brian L.
    Onega, Tracy
    Budesky, Jill
    Jackson-Nefertiti, Gloria
    Johnson, Dianne
    Miglioretti, Diana L.
    Kerlikowske, Karla
    JOURNAL OF WOMENS HEALTH, 2022, 31 (11) : 1547 - 1556
  • [7] Association of PM2.5 and ozone exposure with mammographic breast density in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium
    Yaghjyan, Lusine
    Arao, Robert
    Brokamp, Cole
    O'Meara, Ellen
    Sprague, Brian
    Ghita, Gabriela
    Ryan, Patrick
    CANCER RESEARCH, 2016, 76
  • [8] Comparing Mammographic Density Assessed by Digital Breast Tomosynthesis or Digital Mammography: The Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium
    Tice, Jeffrey A.
    Gard, Charlotte C.
    Miglioretti, Diana L.
    Sprague, Brian L.
    Tosteson, Anna N. A.
    Joe, Bonnie N.
    Ho, Thao-Quyen H.
    Kerlikowske, Karla
    RADIOLOGY, 2022, 302 (02) : 286 - 292
  • [9] Overview of the breast cancer surveillance consortium.
    Ballard-Barbash, R
    Barlow, WE
    Buist, DS
    Carney, P
    Cutter, G
    Dignan, M
    Geller, B
    Kerlikowske, K
    Miglioretti, D
    Rosenberg, R
    Taplin, S
    Yabroff, R
    Yankaskas, B
    Weaver, D
    CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION, 2004, 13 (11) : 1866S - 1867S