PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Martin J Yaffe

Publications and source records attributed to Martin J Yaffe.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2007

Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Extensive mammographic density is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer and makes the detection of cancer by mammography difficult, but the influence of density on risk according to method of cancer detection is unknown. METHODS: We carried out three nested case-control studies in screened populations with 1112 matched case-control pairs. We examined the association of the measured percentage of density in the baseline mammogram with risk of breast cancer, according to method of cancer detection, time since the initiation of screening, and age. RESULTS: As compared with women with density in less than 10% of the mammogram, women with density in 75% or more had an increased risk of breast cancer (odds ratio, 4.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.0 to 7.4), whether detected by screening (odds ratio, 3.5; 95% CI, 2.0 to 6.2) or less than 12 months after a negative screening examination (odds ratio, 17.8; 95% CI, 4.8 to 65.9). Increased risk of breast cancer, whether detected by screening or other means, persisted for at least 8 years after study entry and was greater in younger than in older women. For women younger than the median age of 56 years, 26% of all breast cancers and 50% of cancers detected less than 12 months after a negative screening test were attributable to density in 50% or more of the mammogram. CONCLUSIONS: Extensive mammographic density is strongly associated with the risk of breast cancer detected by screening or between screening tests. A substantial fraction of breast cancers can be attributed to this risk factor.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Design and characterization of a digital image acquisition system for whole-specimen breast histopathology.

We have developed a digital histopathology imaging system capable of producing a three-dimensional (3D) representation of histopathology from an entire lumpectomy specimen. The system has the potential to improve the accuracy of surgical margin assessment in the treatment of breast cancer by providing finer sampling and 3D visualization. A scanning light microscope was modified to allow digital photomicrography of a stack of large (up to 120x170 mm2) histology slides cut serially through the entire specimen. The images are registered and displayed in 2D and 3D. The design of the system, which reduces or eliminates the appearance of 'tiling' and 'seam' artefacts inherent in the scanning method, is described and its resolution, contrast/noise and coverage properties are characterized through measurements of the modulation transfer function (MTF), depth of field (DOF) and signal difference to noise ratio (SDNR). The imaging task requires a lateral resolution of 5 microm, an SDNR of 5 between relevant features, 'tiling artefact' at a level below the detectability threshold of the eye, and 'seam artefact' of less than 5-10 microm. The tests demonstrate that the system is largely adequate for the imaging task, although further optimizations are required to reduce the degradation of coverage incurred by seam artefact.

Anatomy, Cross-Sectional↗
PubMed2006

Quality control for digital mammography in the ACRIN DMIST trial: part I.

The Digital Mammography Imaging Screening Trial, conducted by the American College of Radiology Imaging Network, is a clinical trial designed to compare the accuracy of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) versus screen-film mammography in a screening population. Five FFDM systems from four manufacturers (Fischer, Fuji, General Electric, and Lorad) were employed in the study at 35 clinical sites. A core physics team devised and implemented tests to evaluate these systems. A detailed description of physics and quality control tests is presented, including estimates of: mean glandular dose, modulation transfer function (MTF), 2D noise power spectra, and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). The mean glandular doses for the standard breast ranged from 0.79 to 2.98 mGy, with 1.62 mGy being the average across all units and machine types. For the five systems evaluated, the MTF dropped to 50% at markedly different percentages (22% to 87%) of the Nyquist limit, indicating that factors other than detector element (del) size have an important effect on spatial resolution. Noise power spectra and SNR were measured; however, we found that it was difficult to standardize and compare these between units. For each machine type, the performance as measured by the tests was very consistent, and no predictive benefit was seen for many of the tests during the 2-year period of the trial. It was found that, after verification of proper operation during acceptance testing, if systems failed they generally did so suddenly rather than through gradual deterioration of performance. Because of the relatively short duration of this study further, investigation of the long-term failure characteristics of these systems is advisable.

Algorithms↗
PubMed2006

Quality control for digital mammography: part II. Recommendations from the ACRIN DMIST trial.

The Digital Mammography Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST), conducted under the auspices of the American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN), is a clinical trial designed to compare the accuracy of digital versus screen-film mammography in a screening population [E. Pisano et al., ACRIN 6652-Digital vs. Screen-Film Mammography, ACRIN (2001)]. Part I of this work described the Quality Control program developed to ensure consistency and optimal operation of the digital equipment. For many of the tests, there were no failures during the 24 months imaging was performed in DMIST. When systems failed, they generally did so suddenly rather than through gradual deterioration of performance. In this part, the utility and effectiveness of those tests are considered. This suggests that after verification of proper operation, routine extensive testing would be of minimal value. A recommended set of tests is presented including additional and improved tests, which we believe meet the intent and spirit of the Mammography Quality Standards Act regulations to ensure that full-field digital mammography systems are functioning correctly, and consistently producing mammograms of excellent image quality.

Breast↗
PubMed2006

Effect of scatter and an antiscatter grid on the performance of a slot-scanning digital mammography system.

The use of a grid increases perceptibility of low contrast objects in mammography. Slot-scan mammography provides a more dose efficient reduction of the scattered radiation reaching the detector than obtained with an antiscatter grid in screen-film or flat-panel digital mammography. In this paper, the potential of using a grid in a slot-scan system to provide a further reduction of scattered radiation is investigated. The components of the digital signal: primary radiation, off-focus radiation, scattered radiation, and optical fluorescence glare in a CsI(Tl) detector were quantified. Based on these measurements, the primary and scatter transmission factors (Tp, Ts), scatter-to-primary ratio (SPR), signal-difference-to-noise ratio (SDNR), and the SDNR improvement factor (K(SDNR)) were obtained. Our results showed that the SPR ranged from 0.05 to 0.19 for breast thicknesses between 2 and 8 cm, respectively. The values of K(SDNR) ranged from 0.85 to 0.94. Because the slot-scanning system has an inherently low SPR, the increase in dose required when the grid is used outweighs the benefit of the small increase in SDNR. It is possible that greater benefit could be achieved by using a grid with a higher Tp, such as obtained using air-core technology.

Artifacts↗
PubMed2006

Lag and ghosting in a clinical flat-panel selenium digital mammography system.

We present measurements of lag and ghosting in a FDA-approved digital mammography system that uses a dielectric/selenium based detector structure. Lag is the carryover of signal from a previous image, whereas ghosting is the reduction of sensitivity caused by previous exposure history of the detector. Data from six selenium units were acquired. For the type of selenium detector tested, and under typical clinical usage conditions, the lag was as high as 0.15% of source signal and the ghosting could be as high as 15%. The amount of lag and ghosting varied from unit to unit. Results were compared with data acquired on a phosphor-based full-field digital mammography system. Modifications in the technology of the selenium detectors appear to have resulted in a marked decrease in both lag and ghosting effects in more recent systems.

Artifacts↗
PubMed2006

Resolution at oblique incidence angles of a flat panel imager for breast tomosynthesis.

Oblique incidence of x rays on an imaging detector causes blurring that reduces spatial resolution. For simple projection imaging this effect is small and often ignored. However, for breast tomosynthesis, the incidence angle can be larger (>20 degrees), leading to increased blur for some of the projections. The modulation transfer function (MTF) is measured for a typical phosphor-coupled flat-panel detector versus angular incidence of the x-ray beam for two x-ray spectra: 26 kV Mo/Mo and 40 kV Rh/Al. At an incidence angle of 40 degrees the MTF at 5 mm(-1) falls by 35% and 40% for each spectrum, respectively (and 65%/80% at 8 mm(-1)). Increasing the detector absorber thickness to achieve improved quantum efficiency will cause the blurring effect due to beam obliquity to become greater. The impact of this blur is likely to cause misregistration and increased relative noise in tomosynthesis reconstructed images.

Computer-Aided Design↗
PubMed2006

The heritability of mammographically dense and nondense breast tissue.

BACKGROUND: Percent mammographic density (PMD) is a risk factor for breast cancer. Our previous twin study showed that the heritability of PMD was 63%. This study determined the heritabilities of the components of PMD, the areas of dense and nondense tissue in the mammogram. METHODS: We combined two twin studies comprising 571 monozygous and 380 dizygous twin pairs recruited from Australia and North America. Dense and nondense areas were measured using a computer-assisted method, and information about potential determinants was obtained by questionnaire. Under the assumptions of the classic twin model, we estimated the heritability of the log dense area and log nondense area and the genetic and environmental contributions to the covariance between the two traits, using maximum likelihood theory and the statistical package FISHER. RESULTS: After adjusting for measured determinants, for each of the log dense area and the log nondense area, the monozygous correlations were greater than the dizygous correlations. Heritability was estimated to be 65% (95% confidence interval, 60-70%) for dense area and 66% (95% confidence interval, 61-71%) for nondense area. The correlations (SE) between the two adjusted traits were -0.35 (0.023) in the same individual, -0.26 (0.026) across monozygous pairs, and -0.14 (0.034) across dizygous pairs. CONCLUSION: Genetic factors may play a large role in explaining variation in the mammographic areas of both dense and nondense tissue. About two thirds of the negative correlation between dense and nondense area is explained by the same genetic factors influencing both traits, but in opposite directions.

Adipose Tissue↗
PubMed2006

Mammographic density as a surrogate marker for the effects of hormone therapy on risk of breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Some types of hormone therapy increase both risk of breast cancer and mammographic density, a risk factor for the disease, suggesting that mammographic density may be a surrogate marker for the effects of hormones on risk of breast cancer. This research was undertaken to determine whether the effect of hormone therapy on breast cancer risk is mediated by its effect on mammographic density. METHODS: Individually matched cases and controls from three nested case-control studies in breast screening populations were studied. Cases had developed invasive breast cancer at least 12 months after the initial screen. Information was collected on hormone use and other risk factors at the time of the baseline mammogram, and percent density was measured by a computer-assisted method. RESULTS: There were 1,748 postmenopausal women, of whom 426 (24.4%) were using hormones at the time of their initial screening mammogram. Current use of hormone therapy was associated with an increased risk of breast cancer (odds ratio, 1.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-1.6) that was little changed by adjustment for percent density in the baseline mammogram (odds ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.9-1.5). Percent density in the baseline mammogram was among cases greater in current users of hormones that in never-users (difference = 5.0%, P < 0.001), but the difference was smaller and nonsignificant in controls (difference = 1.6%, P = 0.3). CONCLUSION: Although the effects of hormone therapy on mammographic density were greater in cases than controls, we did not find evidence that these effects were causally related to risk of breast cancer.

Breast↗
PubMed2006

Influence of patterns of hormone replacement therapy use and mammographic density on breast cancer detection.

BACKGROUND: There is evidence that factors such as current hormone replacement therapy (HRT) use and mammographic density may each lower the sensitivity of mammography and are associated with a greater risk of developing an interval cancer. This study explores this relationship further by examining the influence of patterns of HRT use and the percentage of mammographic density on the detection of breast cancer by classification of interval cancer. METHODS: This study uses a case-case design nested within a cohort of women screened by the Ontario Breast Screening Program between 1994 and 2002. Interval cancers, both those missed at screening but seen on retrospective review (n = 87) or true intervals without visible tumor signs at screening (n = 288) were matched to 450 screen-detected cancers. The association between the percentage of mammographic density, measured by radiologists and a computer-assisted method, and HRT use, ascertained from a mailed questionnaire, and the risk of being diagnosed with an interval cancer was estimated using conditional logistic regression. RESULTS: A monotonic gradient of increasing risk for interval cancers was found for each 25% increase in mammographic density [odds ratio (OR), 1.77; 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), 1.07-2.95 for missed intervals and OR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.59-2.94 for true intervals]. After adjusting for mammographic density, a significantly increased risk for true-interval cancers remained for women taking estrogen alone (OR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.11-2.83) as well as for missed- (OR, 2.84; 95% CI, 1.32-6.13) and true-interval cancers (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.10-2.90) for women taking combined HRT. CONCLUSIONS: Information on mammographic density and HRT use should routinely be collected at the time of screening. Women at risk should be made aware of the lower sensitivity of mammography and offered alternative procedures for screening.

Aged↗
PubMed2006

Mammographic density: a hormonally responsive risk factor for breast cancer.

Mammographic density refers to radiologically dense breast tissue, and reflects variations in the tissue composition of the breast. It is positively associated with collagen and epithelial and non-epithelial cells, and negatively associated with fat. There is extensive evidence that mammographic density is a risk factor for breast cancer, independent of other risk factors, and is associated with large relative and attributable risks for the disease. The epidemiology of mammographic density, notably the inverse association with age, is consistent with it being a marker of susceptibility to breast cancer. Cumulative exposure to mammographic density may be an important determinant of the age-specific incidence of breast cancer in the population. All risk factors for breast cancer must ultimately exert their influence by an effect on the breast, and these findings suggest that, for at least some risk factors, this influence includes an effect on the number of cells and the quantity of collagen in the breast, which is reflected in differences in mammographic density. Many of the genetic and environmental factors that influence the risk of breast cancer affect the proliferative activity and quantity of stromal and epithelial tissue in the breast, and these effects are reflected in differences in mammographic density among women of the same age. Some of these influences include endogenous and exogenous hormones, and the menopause. A better understanding of the factors that influence the response of breast tissue to these hormonal exposures may lead to an improved understanding of the aetiology of mammographic density and of breast cancer.

Age Factors↗
PubMed2005

American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial: objectives and methodology.

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) and each participating site and by the IRB and the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program at the National Cancer Institute. The study was monitored by an independent Data Safety and Monitoring Board, which received interim analyses of data to ensure that the study would be terminated early if indicated by trends in the outcomes. The ACRIN, which is funded by the National Cancer Institute, conducted the Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) primarily to compare the diagnostic accuracy of digital and screen-film mammography in asymptomatic women presenting for screening for breast cancer. Over the 25.5 months of enrollment, a total of 49 528 women were included at the 33 participating sites, which used five different types of digital mammography equipment. All participants underwent both screen-film and digital mammography. The digital and screen-film mammograms of each subject were independently interpreted by two radiologists. If findings of either examination were interpreted as abnormal, subsequent work-up occurred according to the recommendations of the interpreting radiologist. Breast cancer status was determined at biopsy or follow-up mammography 11-15 months after study entry. In addition to the measurement of diagnostic accuracy by using the interpretations of mammograms at the study sites, DMIST included evaluations of the relative cost-effectiveness and quality-of-life effects of digital versus screen-film mammography. Six separate reader studies using the de-identified archived DMIST mammograms will also assess the diagnostic accuracy of each of the individual digital mammography machines versus screen-film mammography machines, the effect of breast density on diagnostic accuracy of digital and screen-film mammography, and the effect of different rates of breast cancer on the diagnostic accuracy in a reader study.

Breast Neoplasms↗
PubMed2005

Reference values for diagnostic radiology: application and impact.

Reference values (RVs) are recommended by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine for four radiographic projections, computed tomography, fluoroscopy, and dental radiography. RVs are used to compare radiation doses from individual pieces of radiographic equipment with doses from similar equipment assessed in national surveys. RVs recommended by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine have been developed from the Nationwide Evaluation of X-ray Trends survey performed by the state radiation protection agencies with the cooperation and support of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, and the American College of Radiology. The RVs selected by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine represent, approximately, the 80th percentile of the survey distributions. Consequently, equipment exceeding the RVs is using higher radiation doses than is 80% of the equipment in the surveys. Radiation doses for specific projections, with standard phantoms, should be measured annually, as recommended by the American College of Radiology. When the RVs are exceeded, the medical physicist should investigate the cause and determine, in cooperation with the responsible radiologist, whether these doses are justified or the imaging system should be optimized to reduce patient radiation doses. RVs are a useful tool for comparing patient radiation doses at institutions throughout the United States and for providing information about radiographic equipment performance.

Equipment Safety↗
PubMed2005

Mammographic breast density as an intermediate phenotype for breast cancer.

The amount of radiologically dense breast-tissue appearing on a mammogram varies between women because of differences in the composition of breast tissue, and is referred to here as mammographic density. This review presents evidence that mammographic density is a strong risk factor for breast cancer, and that risk of breast cancer is four to five times greater in women with density in more than 75% of the breast than in women with little or no density in the breast. Density in more than 50% of the breast could account for about a third of breast cancers. The epidemiology of mammographic density is consistent with its being a marker of susceptibility to breast cancer. Twin studies have shown that the proportion of the breast occupied by density, at a given age, is highly heritable, and inherited factors explain 63% of the variance. Mammographic breast density has the characteristics of a quantitative trait and might be determined by genes that are easier to identify than those for breast cancer itself. The genes that determine breast density might also be associated with risk of breast cancer, and their identification is also likely to provide insights into the biology of the breast and identify potential targets for preventive strategies.

Age Factors↗
PubMed2005

Digital mammography.

In digital mammography, the processes of image acquisition, display, and storage are separated, which allows optimization of each. Radiation transmitted through the breast is absorbed by an electronic detector, the response of which is faithful over a wide range of intensities. Once this information is recorded, it can be displayed by using computer image-processing techniques to allow arbitrary settings of image brightness and contrast, without the need for further exposure to the patient. In this article, the current state of the art in technology for digital mammography and data from clinical trials that support the use of the technology will be reviewed. In addition, several potentially useful applications that are being developed with digital mammography will be described.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination.

CONTEXT: Current recommendations for women who have a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation are to undergo breast surveillance from age 25 years onward with mammography annually and clinical breast examination (CBE) every 6 months; however, many tumors are detected at a relatively advanced stage. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound may improve the ability to detect breast cancer at an early stage. OBJECTIVE: To compare the sensitivity and specificity of 4 methods of breast cancer surveillance (mammography, ultrasound, MRI, and CBE) in women with hereditary susceptibility to breast cancer due to a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A surveillance study of 236 Canadian women aged 25 to 65 years with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations who underwent 1 to 3 annual screening examinations, consisting of MRI, mammography, and ultrasound at a single tertiary care teaching hospital between November 3, 1997, and March 31, 2003. On the day of imaging and at 6-month intervals, CBE was performed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity and specificity of each of the 4 surveillance modalities, and sensitivity of all 4 screening modalities vs mammography and CBE. RESULTS: Each imaging modality was read independently by a radiologist and scored on a 5-point Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System scale. All lesions with a score of 4 or 5 (suspicious or highly suspicious for malignancy) were biopsied. There were 22 cancers detected (16 invasive and 6 ductal carcinoma in situ). Of these, 17 (77%) were detected by MRI vs 8 (36%) by mammography, 7 (33%) by ultrasound, and 2 (9.1%) by CBE. The sensitivity and specificity (based on biopsy rates) were 77% and 95.4% for MRI, 36% and 99.8% for mammography, 33% and 96% for ultrasound, and 9.1% and 99.3% for CBE, respectively. There was 1 interval cancer. All 4 screening modalities combined had a sensitivity of 95% vs 45% for mammography and CBE combined. CONCLUSIONS: In BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, MRI is more sensitive for detecting breast cancers than mammography, ultrasound, or CBE alone. Whether surveillance regimens that include MRI will reduce mortality from breast cancer in high-risk women requires further investigation.

Adult↗