Mammographic density is not a worthwhile examination to distinguish high cancer risk women in screening.

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Title:	Mammographic density is not a worthwhile examination to distinguish high cancer risk women in screening.
Authors:	Colin, Catherine¹ catherine.colin01@chu-lyon.fr, Schott, Anne-Marie² anne-marie.schott-pethelaz@chu-lyon.fr, Valette, Pierre-Jean¹ pierre-jean.valette@chu-lyon.fr
Source:	European Radiology. Oct2014, Vol. 24 Issue 10, p2412-2416. 5p. 2 Charts.
Subjects:	Breast cancer risk factors, Breast cancer magnetic resonance imaging, Mammograms, Radioscopic diagnosis, Cancer diagnosis
Abstract:	Numerous studies established high mammographic density (MD) as a significant breast cancer risk. By adopting both radiological and epidemiological perspectives, we analysed the capacity of this radiological parameter to express an individual level of risk and the methods for assessing the relationship between MD categories and risk. MD is unable to identify individual underlying anatomical and physiological components. Many factors affect accurate and reproducible measurements and consequently classifications of MD. Significant relative risks were found by comparing the MD categories in the tails of distribution (i.e. the group of women with the lowest MD to that with the highest MD), which represent <10 % of women in each group: the majority of the population was ignored. When a relevant threshold of MD was applied to compare another group and the entire population was included to compare the two groups, some studies showed no significant or only moderate relative risk (RR) between women with readings above and those below the threshold. Sensitivity and specificity remain unknown. MD cannot be considered a worthwhile test by which to categorically identify high-risk women in screening. Key points • Unknown individual anatomical and physiological components do not express the risk level. • The epidemiological conditions are not relevant to distinguish a high-risk category. • The most relevant studies show no or moderate risks [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
	Copyright of European Radiology is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database:	Engineering Source

Description
Abstract:	Numerous studies established high mammographic density (MD) as a significant breast cancer risk. By adopting both radiological and epidemiological perspectives, we analysed the capacity of this radiological parameter to express an individual level of risk and the methods for assessing the relationship between MD categories and risk. MD is unable to identify individual underlying anatomical and physiological components. Many factors affect accurate and reproducible measurements and consequently classifications of MD. Significant relative risks were found by comparing the MD categories in the tails of distribution (i.e. the group of women with the lowest MD to that with the highest MD), which represent <10 % of women in each group: the majority of the population was ignored. When a relevant threshold of MD was applied to compare another group and the entire population was included to compare the two groups, some studies showed no significant or only moderate relative risk (RR) between women with readings above and those below the threshold. Sensitivity and specificity remain unknown. MD cannot be considered a worthwhile test by which to categorically identify high-risk women in screening. Key points • Unknown individual anatomical and physiological components do not express the risk level. • The epidemiological conditions are not relevant to distinguish a high-risk category. • The most relevant studies show no or moderate risks [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:	09387994
DOI:	10.1007/s00330-014-3278-7