MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2226431206 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs14-p6-09-04

Abstract P6-09-04: Volumetric breast density improves breast cancer risk prediction

2015· article· en· W2226431206 sur OpenAlexaff
Jennifer A. Harvey, George J. Stukenborg, Wendy Cohn, Kathy Repich, Olivier Alonzo, Wendy M. Novicoff, Martin D. Yaffe, William A. Knaus

Notice bibliographique

RevueCancer Research · 2015
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueCancer Risks and Factors
Établissements canadiensHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésBreast cancerMedicineLogistic regressionPopulationMatching (statistics)Conditional logistic regressionCase-control studyStatisticsCancerInternal medicineMathematicsPathologyEnvironmental health

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: There is increasing interest in implementing personalized breast cancer screening strategies rather than relying on population based guidelines. Most risk models do not include breast density and two models that do rely on subjective BI-RADS categories; all have limited discriminatory ability (C-statistics ranging from 0.60-0.74). Our aim was to develop a model that includes an automated objective and numeric volumetric measurement of breast density with other known risk factors to improve risk prediction. Methods: A case-control study design was used to evaluate the association between risk factors and breast cancer diagnosis. All women diagnosed with breast cancer during 2003-13 with a digital contralateral mammogram at the University of Virginia at the time of diagnosis were eligible as cases. All women without a breast cancer diagnosis but with a digital mammogram at UVA during 2003-2008 were eligible as controls. Risk factor information was collected using a self-reported electronic questionnaire. Mean automated volumetric breast density (Volpara, NZ) was calculated for each patient as a percentage. Controls were matched to cases in a 2:1 ratio based on age group, race, and education, using the GREEDY algorithm. Case-control selections were made using the weighted sum of the absolute differences between the case and control matching factors. Conditional logistic regression using the partial likelihood function from Cox proportional hazard’s regression was used to fit risk prediction equations to the matched case-control study dataset, with stratification for each case matched set. A full model was estimated including all available covariates for use as a model performance reference standard. A reduced model was then estimated including covariates in the full model that had a Wald Chi-Square/degrees of freedom ratio > 1.0. The performance of the full and reduced models was measured using the C index and the maximum R-Square statistic. Results: The study enrolled 3,445 women; 839 cases and 2,606 controls. Multivariable analysis was conducted using 825 cases and 1,628 controls with 1 or more breast studies reported for the surveyed population. The matching process yielded balanced matching factor values between cases and controls, with no significant differences in age group (p = 0.95), race (p = 0.13), or education (p = 0.86). The full prediction model (with 97 df) yielded a C index of 0.88, and an R-Square of 0.53. The reduced model (with 15 df) had a C index of 0.83 and an R-Square of 0.54. Variables in the reduced model included: mean breast density; biopsy showing ADH, ALH/LCIS; BMI; use of HRT, contraceptives, NSAIDS; smoking; exercise; parity; diabetes; family history of breast cancer, HBOC, Li-Fraumeni, or Cowden Syndromes and/or BRCA mutation. Mean volumetric breast density was a leading independent predictor of case status in both the full (p<0.0001) and reduced models (p=0.0212). Conclusion: Volumetric breast density with other known risk factors may provide more accurate individual risk assessment, enabling clinicians to develop patient centered risk based screening protocols that better inform decision making while including patient preferences. The next steps require independent validation of the risk model in other populations. Citation Format: Jennifer A Harvey, George J Stukenborg, Wendy F Cohn, Kathy L Repich, Olivier Alonzo, Wendy M Novicoff, Martin D Yaffe, William A Knaus. Volumetric breast density improves breast cancer risk prediction [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2014 Dec 9-13; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(9 Suppl):Abstract nr P6-09-04.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,277
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,079
Tête enseignante GPT0,398
Écart entre enseignants0,319 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2015
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCancer ResearchMême sujetCancer Risks and FactorsTravaux en français237 207