We have located links that may give you full text access.
Methodological challenges and updated findings from a meta-analysis of the association between mammographic density and breast cancer.
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention 2018 September 12
BACKGROUND: Mammographic density (MD) is an established predictor of breast cancer (BC) risk. However, there is limited information on the robustness of the risk associations for different study designs and the associated methodological challenges.
METHODS: Our analysis includes 165 samples from studies published since 2006. We use a weakly-informative Bayesian approach to avoid unduly optimistic estimates of uncertainty, as found in the previous literature.
RESULTS: While much of the published literature is based on categorical measurement of MD, there are tangible advantages in using continuous data in terms of estimate precision and relevance for different patient populations. Estimates based on % MD are more precise for lower density women, whereas absolute MD has advantages for higher density. We show that older results might not be a good proxy for current and future findings and it would be pertinent to adjust clinical interpretations based on the older data.
CONCLUSIONS: Using an appropriate estimation method cognisant of the importance of heterogeneity is critical to obtaining reliable and robust clinical findings that are relevant for broad patient populations.
IMPACT: We find that the existing consensus from previous review studies has underestimated the strength and precision of MD as a risk marker.
METHODS: Our analysis includes 165 samples from studies published since 2006. We use a weakly-informative Bayesian approach to avoid unduly optimistic estimates of uncertainty, as found in the previous literature.
RESULTS: While much of the published literature is based on categorical measurement of MD, there are tangible advantages in using continuous data in terms of estimate precision and relevance for different patient populations. Estimates based on % MD are more precise for lower density women, whereas absolute MD has advantages for higher density. We show that older results might not be a good proxy for current and future findings and it would be pertinent to adjust clinical interpretations based on the older data.
CONCLUSIONS: Using an appropriate estimation method cognisant of the importance of heterogeneity is critical to obtaining reliable and robust clinical findings that are relevant for broad patient populations.
IMPACT: We find that the existing consensus from previous review studies has underestimated the strength and precision of MD as a risk marker.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Essential thrombocythaemia: A contemporary approach with new drugs on the horizon.British Journal of Haematology 2024 April 9
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app