Mammographic breast density: comparison of methods for quantitative evaluation.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the results from two software tools for measurement of mammographic breast density and compare them with observer-based scores in a large cohort of women. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Following written informed consent, a data set of 36 281 mammograms from 8867 women were collected from six United Kingdom centers in an ethically approved trial. Breast density was assessed by one of 26 readers on a visual analog scale and with two automated density tools. Mean differences were calculated as the mean of all the individual percentage differences between each measurement for each case (woman). Agreement in total breast volume, fibroglandular volume, and percentage density was assessed with the Bland-Altman method. Association with observer's scores was calculated by using the Pearson correlation coefficient (r). RESULTS: Correlation between the Quantra and Volpara outputs for total breast volume was r = 0.97 (P < .001), with a mean difference of 43.5 cm(3) for all cases representing 5.0% of the mean total breast volume. Correlation of the two measures was lower for fibroglandular volume (r = 0.86, P < .001). The mean difference was 30.3 cm(3) for all cases representing 21.2% of the mean fibroglandular tissue volume result. Quantra gave the larger value and the difference tended to increase with volume. For the two measures of percentage volume density, the mean difference was 1.61 percentage points (r = 0.78, P < .001). Comparison of observer's scores with the area-based density given by Quantra yielded a low correlation (r = 0.55, P < .001). Correlations of observer's scores with the volumetric density results gave r values of 0.60 (P < .001) and 0.63 (P < .001) for Quantra and Volpara, respectively. CONCLUSION: Automated techniques for measuring breast density show good correlation, but these are poorly correlated with observer's scores. However automated techniques do give different results that should be considered when informing patient personalized imaging. (©) RSNA, 2015 Clinical trial registration no. ISRCTN 73467396.Supported by the National Institute for Health Research’s Health Technology Assessment Programme.This is the final version of the article. It first appeared at http://pubs.rsna.org/doi/full/10.1148/radiol.1414150

Mammographic density and breast cancer risk in breast screening assessment cases and women with a family history of breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Mammographic density has been shown to be a strong independent predictor of breast cancer and a causative factor in reducing the sensitivity of mammography. There remain questions as to the use of mammographic density information in the context of screening and risk management, and of the association with cancer in populations known to be at increased risk of breast cancer. AIM: To assess the association of breast density with presence of cancer by measuring mammographic density visually as a percentage, and with two automated volumetric methods, Quantra™ and VolparaDensity™. METHODS: The TOMosynthesis with digital MammographY (TOMMY) study of digital breast tomosynthesis in the Breast Screening Programme of the National Health Service (NHS) of the United Kingdom (UK) included 6020 breast screening assessment cases (of whom 1158 had breast cancer) and 1040 screened women with a family history of breast cancer (of whom two had breast cancer). We assessed the association of each measure with breast cancer risk in these populations at enhanced risk, using logistic regression adjusted for age and total breast volume as a surrogate for body mass index (BMI). RESULTS: All density measures showed a positive association with presence of cancer and all declined with age. The strongest effect was seen with Volpara absolute density, with a significant 3% (95% CI 1-5%) increase in risk per 10 cm3 of dense tissue. The effect of Volpara volumetric density on risk was stronger for large and grade 3 tumours. CONCLUSIONS: Automated absolute breast density is a predictor of breast cancer risk in populations at enhanced risk due to either positive mammographic findings or family history. In the screening context, density could be a trigger for more intensive imaging

Genetic Variants at Chromosomes 2q35, 5p12, 6q25.1, 10q26.13, and 16q12.1 Influence the Risk of Breast Cancer in Men

Male breast cancer accounts for approximately 1% of all breast cancer. To date, risk factors for male breast cancer are poorly defined, but certain risk factors and genetic features appear common to both male and female breast cancer. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have recently identified common single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that influence female breast cancer risk; 12 of these have been independently replicated. To examine if these variants contribute to male breast cancer risk, we genotyped 433 male breast cancer cases and 1,569 controls. Five SNPs showed a statistically significant association with male breast cancer: rs13387042 (2q35) (odds ratio (OR)  = 1.30, p = 7.98×10−4), rs10941679 (5p12) (OR = 1.26, p = 0.007), rs9383938 (6q25.1) (OR = 1.39, p = 0.004), rs2981579 (FGFR2) (OR = 1.18, p = 0.03), and rs3803662 (TOX3) (OR = 1.48, p = 4.04×10−6). Comparing the ORs for male breast cancer with the published ORs for female breast cancer, three SNPs—rs13387042 (2q35), rs3803662 (TOX3), and rs6504950 (COX11)—showed significant differences in ORs (p<0.05) between sexes. Breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease; the relative risks associated with loci identified to date show subtype and, based on these data, gender specificity. Additional studies of well-defined patient subgroups could provide further insight into the biological basis of breast cancer development

Production of He-4 and (4) in Pb-Pb collisions at root(NN)-N-S=2.76 TeV at the LHC

Results on the production of He-4 and (4) nuclei in Pb-Pb collisions at root(NN)-N-S = 2.76 TeV in the rapidity range vertical bar y vertical bar <1, using the ALICE detector, are presented in this paper. The rapidity densities corresponding to 0-10% central events are found to be dN/dy4(He) = (0.8 +/- 0.4 (stat) +/- 0.3 (syst)) x 10(-6) and dN/dy4 = (1.1 +/- 0.4 (stat) +/- 0.2 (syst)) x 10(-6), respectively. This is in agreement with the statistical thermal model expectation assuming the same chemical freeze-out temperature (T-chem = 156 MeV) as for light hadrons. The measured ratio of (4)/He-4 is 1.4 +/- 0.8 (stat) +/- 0.5 (syst). (C) 2018 Published by Elsevier B.V.Peer reviewe

Abstract: Genetic alterations of N-acetyl transferase in transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder

Northern hybridization analyses of the oestrogen-inducible mRNAs pLIV1 and pS2 were compared with oestrogen receptor (ER) immunocytochemistry assessments in 40 untreated primary or early recurrent breast tumours. Significant associations were observed between pLIV1/ER (P < 0.03), pS2/ER (P < 0.001) and pLIV1/pS2 (P < 0.04) status. After disease recurrence, patients were treated with assessable courses of endocrine therapies. Positive pLIV1, pS2 and ER statuses in primary disease were consequently found to be predictive of endocrine responsiveness in the secondary lesions (P < 0.03, P < 0.02, P < 0.005 respectively). However, despite these associations, a number of pLIV1- and/or pS2-positive tumours failed to respond to therapy

Immunocytochemical localization of BCL-2 protein in human breast cancers and its relationship to a series of prognostic markers and response to endocrine therapy

The protein product of the bcl-2 gene is thought to be involved in inhibition of apoptosis; it may therefore be important in the modulation of hormonal/anti-hormonal responsiveness exhibited by tumours. This study immunocytochemically investigates (i) relationships between bcl-2 protein expression in primary breast cancers and other markers of prognostic and therapeutic value and (ii) associations of the bcl-2 protein with breast cancer responsiveness to endocrine therapy. The bcl-2 protein was found within the tumour epithelial cell cytoplasm of 32/46 breast cancer specimens; inter-patient staining was heterogeneous. Immunostaining for steroid hormone receptors was strongly associated with that for the bcl-2 protein, and it is thus possible that this protein, like progesterone receptor, is under oestrogen regulation via oestrogen receptor. The protein was inversely related to 2 markers of endocrine insensitivity, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and c-erbB-2 oncoprotein, while no associations were observed with either transforming growth factor (TGF)-alpha or Ki-67 proliferative status. A highly significant relationship was observed between response to endocrine therapy and the presence of bcl-2 protein. Indeed, bcl-2 immunostaining proved to be a more accurate predictor of response than oestrogen receptor status. Patients with elevated bcl-2 immunostaining (particularly those who co-expressed high oestrogen receptor levels) appeared to derive the greatest benefit from endocrine therapy. Our results are paradoxical since it was expected that the bcl-2 protein would counteract the tumour inhibitory effects of endocrine therapies as it is thought to prevent programmed cell death