Cirrus: An Automated Mammography-Based Measure of Breast Cancer Risk Based on Textural Features

Abstract Background We applied machine learning to find a novel breast cancer predictor based on information in a mammogram. Methods Using image-processing techniques, we automatically processed 46 158 analog mammograms for 1345 cases and 4235 controls from a cohort and case–control study of Australian women, and a cohort study of Japanese American women, extracting 20 textural features not based on pixel brightness threshold. We used Bayesian lasso regression to create individual- and mammogram-specific measures of breast cancer risk, Cirrus. We trained and tested measures across studies. We fitted Cirrus with conventional mammographic density measures using logistic regression, and computed odds ratios (OR) per standard deviation adjusted for age and body mass index. Results Combining studies, almost all textural features were associated with case–control status. The ORs for Cirrus measures trained on one study and tested on another study ranged from 1.56 to 1.78 (all P < 10−6). For the Cirrus measure derived from combining studies, the OR was 1.90 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.73 to 2.09), equivalent to a fourfold interquartile risk ratio, and was little attenuated after adjusting for conventional measures. In contrast, the OR for the conventional measure was 1.34 (95% CI = 1.25 to 1.43), and after adjusting for Cirrus it became 1.16 (95% CI = 1.08 to 1.24; P = 4 × 10−5). Conclusions A fully automated personal risk measure created from combining textural image features performs better at predicting breast cancer risk than conventional mammographic density risk measures, capturing half the risk-predicting ability of the latter measures. In terms of differentiating affected and unaffected women on a population basis, Cirrus could be one of the strongest known risk factors for breast cancer.

[1]  Jack Cuzick,et al.  A novel and fully automated mammographic texture analysis for risk prediction: results from two case-control studies , 2017, Breast Cancer Research.

[2]  J. Hopper,et al.  Mammographic density defined by higher than conventional brightness threshold better predicts breast cancer risk for full-field digital mammograms , 2015, Breast Cancer Research.

[3]  Zhimin Huo,et al.  Computerized analysis of digitized mammograms of BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers. , 2002, Radiology.

[4]  David A Clausi An analysis of co-occurrence texture statistics as a function of grey level quantization , 2002 .

[5]  Robert M. Haralick,et al.  Textural Features for Image Classification , 1973, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[6]  C. Vachon,et al.  Mammographic density phenotypes and risk of breast cancer: a meta-analysis. , 2014, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[7]  J. Hopper,et al.  Breast Cancer Risk Associations with Digital Mammographic Density by Pixel Brightness Threshold and Mammographic System. , 2017, Radiology.

[8]  G. Casella,et al.  The Bayesian Lasso , 2008 .

[9]  Nico Karssemeijer,et al.  Robust Breast Composition Measurement - VolparaTM , 2010, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

[10]  Leen-Kiat Soh,et al.  Texture analysis of SAR sea ice imagery using gray level co-occurrence matrices , 1999, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote. Sens..

[11]  C. Nickson,et al.  AutoDensity: an automated method to measure mammographic breast density that predicts breast cancer risk and screening outcomes , 2013, Breast Cancer Research.

[12]  Daniel F. Schmidt,et al.  High-Dimensional Bayesian Regularised Regression with the BayesReg Package , 2016, 1611.06649.

[13]  D. English,et al.  Associations of mammographic dense and nondense areas and body mass index with risk of breast cancer. , 2014, American journal of epidemiology.

[14]  N. Karssemeijer,et al.  Influence of Risk Category and Screening Round on the Performance of an MR Imaging and Mammography Screening Program in Carriers of the BRCA Mutation and Other Women at Increased Risk. , 2017, Radiology.

[15]  Nico Karssemeijer,et al.  Robust breast composition measurement - Volpara™ , 2010 .

[16]  Robert Tibshirani,et al.  The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction, 2nd Edition , 2001, Springer Series in Statistics.

[17]  D. English,et al.  Inference about Causation from Examination of Familial Confounding: Application to Longitudinal Twin Data on Mammographic Density Measures that Predict Breast Cancer Risk , 2012, Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention.

[18]  Gary D Bader,et al.  Association analysis identifies 65 new breast cancer risk loci , 2017, Nature.

[19]  E. Conant,et al.  Beyond breast density: a review on the advancing role of parenchymal texture analysis in breast cancer risk assessment , 2016, Breast Cancer Research.

[20]  Jane E. Carpenter,et al.  Prediction of Breast Cancer Risk Based on Profiling With Common Genetic Variants , 2015, JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[21]  C. Vachon,et al.  Tissue-based associations of mammographic breast density with breast stem cell markers , 2017, Breast Cancer Research.

[22]  B. Keller,et al.  Preliminary evaluation of the publicly available Laboratory for Breast Radiodensity Assessment (LIBRA) software tool: comparison of fully automated area and volumetric density measures in a case–control study with digital mammography , 2015, Breast Cancer Research.

[23]  Graham G. Giles,et al.  Explaining Variance in the Cumulus Mammographic Measures That Predict Breast Cancer Risk: A Twins and Sisters Study , 2013, Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

[24]  R. Tibshirani Regression Shrinkage and Selection via the Lasso , 1996 .

[25]  J. Hopper Odds per adjusted standard deviation: comparing strengths of associations for risk factors measured on different scales and across diseases and populations. , 2015, American journal of epidemiology.

[26]  L. Kolonel,et al.  Mammographic density and breast cancer risk: the multiethnic cohort study. , 2005, American journal of epidemiology.

[27]  J. Rommens,et al.  Mammographic density defined by higher than conventional brightness thresholds better predicts breast cancer risk , 2016, International journal of epidemiology.

[28]  N. Boyd,et al.  The quantitative analysis of mammographic densities. , 1994, Physics in medicine and biology.

[29]  D. English,et al.  Mammographic density and risk of breast cancer by mode of detection and tumor size: a case-control study , 2016, Breast Cancer Research.