E-ISSN 2367-699X | ISSN 2367-7414
 

Original Research 


BREAST CANCER RISK EVALUATION - A CORRELATION BETWEEN MAMMOGRAPHIC DENSITY AND THE GAIL MODEL

George Baytchev, Ivan Inkov, Nikola Kyuchukov, Emilia Zlateva.

Cited by (2)

Abstract
Background: The Gail model is a statistical tool, which assesses breast cancer probability, based on nonmodifiable risk factors. In contrast, the evaluation of mammographic breast density is an independent and dynamic risk factor influenced by interventions modifying breast cancer risk incidence.
Objective: The aim of the present study is to compare the possibilities for risk factor integration and analysis and to search for a correlation between mammographic density and the Gail model for breast cancer risk evaluation.
Materials and Methods: The subject of this prospective study is a cohort of 107 women at ages from 37 to 71 years, who have had benign breast diseases, digital mammograms, and Gail model risk evaluation.
Mammographic density is evaluated in craniocaudal projection subjectively visually and objectively using the computer imaging software. (Image J software) The Gail risk evaluation is completed using the standardized NCI questionnaire (Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool).
Results: In concordance with the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RAD) by ACR, mammographic density is evaluated using a four-grade scale. Low density D1 (less than 25%) was determined in 24 cases, D2 (25-50%) in 36 cases, D3 (51-75%) in 31 cases and high density D4 (greater than 75%) in 16 cases.
According to the Gail model, 80 (74,8%) of the examined patients did not have an increased risk (less than 1,67% for a five-year period), whereas the remaining 27 (25,2%) had a statistically significant increase in risk (greater than 1,67% for a five-year period). Women with increased risk more often present with denser breast (34% with D3, D4 versus 18,3% for D1, D2).
Conclusion: The Gail model does not adequately explain the correlation between breast density and statistically calculated risk. The development of more detailed tools, which take into consideration breast density, as well as other risk factors, may be helpful for a more accurate evaluation of the individual risk for breast cancer.

Key words: breast cancer, risk evaluation, Gail model, mammographic density


 
ARTICLE TOOLS
Abstract
PDF Fulltext
Print this article Print this Article
How to cite this articleHow to cite this article
Citation Tools
Related Records
 Articles by George Baytchev
Articles by Ivan Inkov
Articles by Nikola Kyuchukov
Articles by Emilia Zlateva
on Google
on Google Scholar
Article Statistics
 Viewed: 2748
Downloaded: 690
Cited: 2

REFERENCES
1. Boyd NF, Jensen HM, Cooke G, Han HL. Relationship between mammographic and histological risk factors for breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1992;84:1170 – 9 [DOI via Crossref]    [Pubmed]   
2. Boyd NF, MartinLJ, Yaff MJ and Minkin S. Mammographic density and breast cancer risk: current understanding and future prospects. Breast Cancer Research 2011, 13:223 [DOI via Crossref]    [Pubmed]    [PMC Free Fulltext]   
3. Eng A., Gallant Z., Shepherd J. end all. Digital Mammographic density and breast cancer risk: a case–control study of six alternative density assessment methods. Breast Cancer Research 2014, 16:439 [DOI via Crossref]    [Pubmed]    [PMC Free Fulltext]   
4. Weissman SM. Identifying Women at High Risk of Breast Cancer: Understanding the Risk Models. In: Management of the Patient at High Risk for Breast Cancer. N.M. Hansen(ed.) Springer Science Business Media, New York 2013, 1-28 [DOI via Crossref]    [Pubmed]    [PMC Free Fulltext]   
5. Amir E, Freedman OC, Seruga B, Evans DG. Assessing women at high risk of breast cancer: a review of risk assessment models. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102:680–91. [DOI via Crossref]    [Pubmed]   
6. http://www.cancer.gov/bcrisktool/
7. Rasband, W.S., ImageJ, U. S. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA, http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/, 1997- 2014.
8. Vacek, P.M. and Geller, B.M. A prospestive study of breast cancer risk using routine mammographic breast density measurements. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2004; 13,5,715-22 [Pubmed]   
9. Boyd, N. F.; Martin, L. J.; Bronskill, M.; Yaffe, M. J.; Duric, N. & Minkin, S. Breast tissue composition and susceptibility to breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst, 2010, 102,16, pp.1224-1237 [DOI via Crossref]    [Pubmed]    [PMC Free Fulltext]   
10. Palomares MR, Machia JRB, Lehman CD, et all. Mammographic ensity Correlation with Gail Model Breast Cancer Risk Estimates and Component Risk Factors. Cancer Epidemiol BiomarkersPrev 2006;15(7):1324–30) [DOI via Crossref]    [Pubmed]   
11. Lee MM, Petrakis NL, Wrensch MR, KingEB, Miike R, Sickles E. Association of abnormal nipple aspirate cytology and mammographic pattern and density. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1994;3:33 – 6 [Pubmed]   
12. Alowami S, Troup S, Al-Haddad S, Kirkpatrick I, Watson PH. Mammographic density is related to stroma and stromal proteoglycan expression.Breast Cancer Res 2003;5: R129 – 35 [DOI via Crossref]    [Pubmed]    [PMC Free Fulltext]   
13. Li T, Sun L, Miller N, et al. The association of measured breast tissue characteristics with mammographic density and other risk factors for breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2005;14:343 – 9 [DOI via Crossref]    [Pubmed]   

This Article Cited By the following articles

Breast cancer risk assessment by Gail Model in women of Baghdad
Alexandria Journal of Medicine 2017; 53(2): 183.

1
 
Breast Density Evaluation: A comparison between assessment by a radiologist and the computer-assisted threshold technique
International Journal of Surgery and Medicine 2015; (): 1.

2
 
How to Cite this Article
Pubmed Style

George Baytchev, Ivan Inkov, Nikola Kyuchukov, Emilia Zlateva. BREAST CANCER RISK EVALUATION - A CORRELATION BETWEEN MAMMOGRAPHIC DENSITY AND THE GAIL MODEL. Int J Surg Med. 2015; 1(1): 18-21. doi:10.5455/ijsm.20150524105608


Web Style

George Baytchev, Ivan Inkov, Nikola Kyuchukov, Emilia Zlateva. BREAST CANCER RISK EVALUATION - A CORRELATION BETWEEN MAMMOGRAPHIC DENSITY AND THE GAIL MODEL. http://www.ejos.org/?mno=187576 [Access: February 20, 2019]. doi:10.5455/ijsm.20150524105608


AMA (American Medical Association) Style

George Baytchev, Ivan Inkov, Nikola Kyuchukov, Emilia Zlateva. BREAST CANCER RISK EVALUATION - A CORRELATION BETWEEN MAMMOGRAPHIC DENSITY AND THE GAIL MODEL. Int J Surg Med. 2015; 1(1): 18-21. doi:10.5455/ijsm.20150524105608



Vancouver/ICMJE Style

George Baytchev, Ivan Inkov, Nikola Kyuchukov, Emilia Zlateva. BREAST CANCER RISK EVALUATION - A CORRELATION BETWEEN MAMMOGRAPHIC DENSITY AND THE GAIL MODEL. Int J Surg Med. (2015), [cited February 20, 2019]; 1(1): 18-21. doi:10.5455/ijsm.20150524105608



Harvard Style

George Baytchev, Ivan Inkov, Nikola Kyuchukov, Emilia Zlateva (2015) BREAST CANCER RISK EVALUATION - A CORRELATION BETWEEN MAMMOGRAPHIC DENSITY AND THE GAIL MODEL. Int J Surg Med, 1 (1), 18-21. doi:10.5455/ijsm.20150524105608



Turabian Style

George Baytchev, Ivan Inkov, Nikola Kyuchukov, Emilia Zlateva. 2015. BREAST CANCER RISK EVALUATION - A CORRELATION BETWEEN MAMMOGRAPHIC DENSITY AND THE GAIL MODEL. International Journal of Surgery and Medicine, 1 (1), 18-21. doi:10.5455/ijsm.20150524105608



Chicago Style

George Baytchev, Ivan Inkov, Nikola Kyuchukov, Emilia Zlateva. "BREAST CANCER RISK EVALUATION - A CORRELATION BETWEEN MAMMOGRAPHIC DENSITY AND THE GAIL MODEL." International Journal of Surgery and Medicine 1 (2015), 18-21. doi:10.5455/ijsm.20150524105608



MLA (The Modern Language Association) Style

George Baytchev, Ivan Inkov, Nikola Kyuchukov, Emilia Zlateva. "BREAST CANCER RISK EVALUATION - A CORRELATION BETWEEN MAMMOGRAPHIC DENSITY AND THE GAIL MODEL." International Journal of Surgery and Medicine 1.1 (2015), 18-21. Print. doi:10.5455/ijsm.20150524105608



APA (American Psychological Association) Style

George Baytchev, Ivan Inkov, Nikola Kyuchukov, Emilia Zlateva (2015) BREAST CANCER RISK EVALUATION - A CORRELATION BETWEEN MAMMOGRAPHIC DENSITY AND THE GAIL MODEL. International Journal of Surgery and Medicine, 1 (1), 18-21. doi:10.5455/ijsm.20150524105608