Dataset Information

Dense and nondense mammographic area and risk of breast cancer by age and tumor characteristics.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Mammographic density (MD) is a strong breast cancer risk factor. We previously reported associations of percent mammographic density (PMD) with larger and node-positive tumors across all ages, and estrogen receptor (ER)-negative status among women ages <55 years. To provide insight into these associations, we examined the components of PMD [dense area (DA) and nondense area (NDA)] with breast cancer subtypes. METHODS:Data were pooled from six studies including 4,095 breast cancers and 8,558 controls. DA and NDA were assessed from digitized film-screen mammograms and standardized across studies. Breast cancer odds by density phenotypes and age according to histopathologic characteristics and receptor status were calculated using polytomous logistic regression. RESULTS:DA was associated with increased breast cancer risk [OR for quartiles: 0.65, 1.00 (Ref), 1.22, 1.55; P(trend) <0.001] and NDA was associated with decreased risk [ORs for quartiles: 1.39, 1.00 (Ref), 0.88, 0.72; P(trend) <0.001] across all ages and invasive tumor characteristics. There were significant trends in the magnitude of associations of both DA and NDA with breast cancer by increasing tumor size (P(trend) < 0.001) but no differences by nodal status. Among women <55 years, DA was more strongly associated with increased risk of ER(+) versus ER(-) tumors (P(het) = 0.02), while NDA was more strongly associated with decreased risk of ER(-) versus ER(+) tumors (P(het) = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS:DA and NDA have differential associations with ER(+) versus ER(-) tumors that vary by age. IMPACT:DA and NDA are important to consider when developing age- and subtype-specific risk models.

SUBMITTER: Bertrand KA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4417380 | biostudies-literature | 2015 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Dense and nondense mammographic area and risk of breast cancer by age and tumor characteristics.

Bertrand Kimberly A KA Scott Christopher G CG Tamimi Rulla M RM Jensen Matthew R MR Pankratz V Shane VS Norman Aaron D AD Visscher Daniel W DW Couch Fergus J FJ Shepherd John J Chen Yunn-Yi YY Fan Bo B Wu Fang-Fang FF Ma Lin L Beck Andrew H AH Cummings Steven R SR Kerlikowske Karla K Vachon Celine M CM

Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology 20150225 5

<h4>Background</h4>Mammographic density (MD) is a strong breast cancer risk factor. We previously reported associations of percent mammographic density (PMD) with larger and node-positive tumors across all ages, and estrogen receptor (ER)-negative status among women ages <55 years. To provide insight into these associations, we examined the components of PMD [dense area (DA) and nondense area (NDA)] with breast cancer subtypes.<h4>Methods</h4>Data were pooled from six studies including 4,095 bre ...[more]

PMID: 25716949

Similar Datasets

Project description:Purpose: Mammographic characteristics are known to be correlated to breast cancer risk. Percent mammographic density (PMD), as assessed by computer-assisted methods, is an established risk factor for breast cancer. Along with this assessment the absolute dense area (DA) of the breast is reported as well. Aim of this study was to assess the predictive value of DA concerning breast cancer risk in addition to other risk factors and in addition to PMD. Methods: We conducted a case control study with hospital-based patients with a diagnosis of invasive breast cancer and healthy women as controls. A total of 561 patients and 376 controls with available mammographic density were included into this study. We describe the differences concerning the common risk factors BMI, parital status, use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and menopause between cases and controls and estimate the odds ratios for PMD and DA, adjusted for the mentioned risk factors. Furthermore we compare the prediction models with each other to find out whether the addition of DA improves the model. Results: Mammographic density and DA were highly correlated with each other. Both variables were as well correlated to the commonly known risk factors with an expected direction and strength, however PMD (??=?-0.56) was stronger correlated to BMI than DA (??=?-0.11). The group of women within the highest quartil of PMD had an OR of 2.12 (95?% CI: 1.25-3.62). This could not be seen for the fourth quartile concerning DA. However the assessment of breast cancer risk could be improved by including DA in a prediction model in addition to common risk factors and PMD. Conclusions: The inclusion of the parameter DA into a prediction model for breast cancer in addition to established risk factors and PMD could improve the breast cancer risk assessment. As DA is measured together with PMD in the process of computer-assisted assessment of PMD it might be considered to include it as one additional breast cancer risk factor that is obtained from breast imaging.

Project description:Overdiagnosis of breast cancer, i.e. the detection of slow-growing tumors that would never have caused symptoms or death, became more prevalent with the implementation of population-based screening. Only rough estimates have been made of the proportion of patients that are overdiagnosed and identification of those patients is difficult. Therefore, the aim of this study is to evaluate whether tumor biology can help identify patients with screen-detected tumors at such a low risk of recurrence that they are likely to be overdiagnosed. Furthermore, we wish to evaluate the impact of the transition from film-screen mammography (FSM) to the more sensitive full-field digital mammography (FFDM) on the biology of the tumors detected by each screening-modality. All Dutch breast cancer patients enrolled in the MINDACT trial (EORTC-10041) accrued 2007-2011, who participated in the national screening program (biennial screening ages 50-75) were included (n = 1,165). We calculated the proportions of high-, low- and among those the ultralow-risk tumors according to the 70-gene signature for patients with screen-detected (n = 775) and interval (n = 390) cancers for FSM and FFDM. Screen-detected cancers had significantly more often a low-risk tumor biology (68 %) of which 54 % even an ultralow-risk compared to interval cancers (53 % low-, of which 45 % ultralow-risk (p = 0.001) with an OR of 2.33 (p < 0.0001; 95 % CI 1.73-3.15). FFDM detected significantly more high-risk tumors (35 %) compared to FSM (27 %) (p = 0.011). Aside from favorable clinico-pathological factors, screen-detected cancers were also more likely to have a biologically low-risk or even ultralow-risk tumor. Especially for patients with screen-detected cancers the use of tools, such as the 70-gene signature, to differentiate breast cancers by risk of recurrence may minimize overtreatment. The recent transition in screening-modalities led to an increase in the detection of biologically high-risk cancers using FFDM.

Project description:IntroductionIt is not clear whether high mammographic density (MD) is equally associated with all subtypes of breast cancer (BC). We investigated the association between MD and subsequent BC, considering invasiveness, means of detection, pathologic subtype, and the time elapsed since mammographic exploration and BC diagnosis.MethodsBC cases occurring in the population of women who attended screening from 1997 through 2004 in Navarre, a Spanish region with a fully consolidated screening program, were identified via record linkage with the Navarre Cancer Registry (n = 1,172). Information was extracted from the records of their first attendance at screening in that period. For each case, we randomly selected four controls, matched by screening round, year of birth, and place of residence. Cases were classified according to invasiveness (ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) versus invasive tumors), pathologic subtype (considering hormonal receptors and HER2), and type of diagnosis (screen-detected versus interval cases). MD was evaluated by a single, experienced radiologist by using a semiquantitative scale. Data on BC risk factors were obtained by the screening program in the corresponding round. The association between MD and tumor subtype was assessed by using conditional logistic regression.ResultsMD was clearly associated with subsequent BC. The odds ratio (OR) for the highest MD category (MD >75%) compared with the reference category (MD <10%) was similar for DCIS (OR = 3.47; 95% CI = 1.46 to 8.27) and invasive tumors (OR = 2.95; 95% CI = 2.01 to 4.35). The excess risk was particularly high for interval cases (OR = 7.72; 95% CI = 4.02 to 14.81) in comparison with screened detected tumors (OR = 2.17; 95% CI = 1.40 to 3.36). Sensitivity analyses excluding interval cases diagnosed in the first year after MD assessment or immediately after an early recall to screening yielded similar results. No differences were seen regarding pathologic subtypes. The excess risk associated with MD persisted for at least 7 to 8 years after mammographic exploration.ConclusionsOur results confirm that MD is an important risk factor for all types of breast cancer. High breast density strongly increases the risk of developing an interval tumor, and this excess risk is not completely explained by a possible masking effect.

Dataset Information

Dense and nondense mammographic area and risk of breast cancer by age and tumor characteristics.

Publications

Dense and nondense mammographic area and risk of breast cancer by age and tumor characteristics.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure