Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Objectives: Mammographic breast arterial calcification (BAC) is an emerging imaging biomarker of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in women. The purpose of this study was to assess if breast radiation therapy (RT) exposure impacts the screening utility of this imaging biomarker.
Methods: This cross-sectional study included women ages 40-75 years who underwent index screening mammography between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2012. Chart review was performed to extract data on the breast cancer RT exposure and CVD risk factors. Mammograms were reviewed for the presence of BAC. Multivariate logistic regression was used to examine breast RT exposure and BAC, with adjustment for age, body mass index, smoking status, hypertension, Type 2 diabetes, statin medication use, and antihypertensive medication use.
Results: Of the 1155 women included in this analysis, 222 (19.2%) had mammographic evidence of BAC, 122 (10.6%) had a history of RT exposure, and 39 (32%) women with RT exposure had mammographic BAC. Women with breast RT exposure had higher odds of BAC compared to women without (odds ratio: 2.18, 95% CI: 1.43, 3.28; P-value = .0008). However, this association became non-significant after multivariable adjustment, with the maximally adjusted model demonstrating an odds ratio of 1.52 (95% CI: 0.95, 2.40; P-value = .07).
Conclusions: Our findings suggest that breast RT exposure does not impact the prevalence of mammographic BAC. Therefore, it does not affect its utility as an imaging biomarker of CVD risk.
Advances In Knowledge: This is the first observational study addressing the knowledge gap pertaining to the influence of breast RT exposure on BAC.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjr/tqae182 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!