Dataset Information

Mammographic density and breast cancer risk in breast screening assessment cases and women with a family history of breast cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Mammographic density has been shown to be a strong independent predictor of breast cancer and a causative factor in reducing the sensitivity of mammography. There remain questions as to the use of mammographic density information in the context of screening and risk management, and of the association with cancer in populations known to be at increased risk of breast cancer.

Aim

To assess the association of breast density with presence of cancer by measuring mammographic density visually as a percentage, and with two automated volumetric methods, Quantra™ and VolparaDensity™.

Methods

The TOMosynthesis with digital MammographY (TOMMY) study of digital breast tomosynthesis in the Breast Screening Programme of the National Health Service (NHS) of the United Kingdom (UK) included 6020 breast screening assessment cases (of whom 1158 had breast cancer) and 1040 screened women with a family history of breast cancer (of whom two had breast cancer). We assessed the association of each measure with breast cancer risk in these populations at enhanced risk, using logistic regression adjusted for age and total breast volume as a surrogate for body mass index (BMI).

Results

All density measures showed a positive association with presence of cancer and all declined with age. The strongest effect was seen with Volpara absolute density, with a significant 3% (95% CI 1-5%) increase in risk per 10 cm³ of dense tissue. The effect of Volpara volumetric density on risk was stronger for large and grade 3 tumours.

Conclusions

Automated absolute breast density is a predictor of breast cancer risk in populations at enhanced risk due to either positive mammographic findings or family history. In the screening context, density could be a trigger for more intensive imaging.

SUBMITTER: Duffy SW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5768323 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Mammographic density and breast cancer risk in breast screening assessment cases and women with a family history of breast cancer.

Duffy Stephen W SW Morrish Oliver W E OWE Allgood Prue C PC Black Richard R Gillan Maureen G C MGC Willsher Paula P Cooke Julie J Duncan Karen A KA Michell Michael J MJ Dobson Hilary M HM Maroni Roberta R Lim Yit Y YY Purushothaman Hema N HN Suaris Tamara T Astley Susan M SM Young Kenneth C KC Tucker Lorraine L Gilbert Fiona J FJ

European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990) 20171127

<h4>Background</h4>Mammographic density has been shown to be a strong independent predictor of breast cancer and a causative factor in reducing the sensitivity of mammography. There remain questions as to the use of mammographic density information in the context of screening and risk management, and of the association with cancer in populations known to be at increased risk of breast cancer.<h4>Aim</h4>To assess the association of breast density with presence of cancer by measuring mammographic ...[more]

PMID: 29190506

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceFamily history of breast cancer (FHBC) and mammographic breast density are independent risk factors for breast cancer, but the association of FHBC and mammographic breast density in premenopausal women is not well understood.ObjectivesTo investigate the association of FHBC and mammographic breast density in premenopausal women using both quantitative and qualitative measurements.Design, setting, and participantsThis single-center cohort study examined 2 retrospective cohorts: a discovery set of 375 premenopausal women and a validation set of 14 040 premenopausal women. Data from women in the discovery set was collected between December 2015 and October 2016, whereas data from women in the validation set was collected between June 2010 and December 2015. Data analysis was performed between June 2018 and June 2020.ExposuresFamily history of breast cancer (FHBC).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were mammographic breast density measured quantitatively as volumetric percent density using Volpara (discovery set) and qualitatively using BI-RADS (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System) breast density (validation set). Multivariable regressions were performed using a log-transformed normal distribution for the discovery set and a logistic distribution for the validation set.ResultsOf 14 415 premenopausal women included in the study, the discovery set and validation set had similar characteristics (discovery set with FHBC: mean [SD] age, 47.1 [5.6] years; 15 [17.2%] were Black or African American women and 64 [73.6%] were non-Hispanic White women; discovery set with no FHBC: mean [SD] age, 47.7 [4.5] years; 87 [31.6%] were Black or African American women and 178 [64.7%] were non-Hispanic White women; validation set with FHBC: mean [SD] age, 46.8 [7.3] years; 720 [33.4%] were Black or African American women and 1378 [64.0%] were non-Hispanic White women]; validation set with no FHBC: mean [SD] age, 47.5 [6.1] years; 4572 [38.5%] were Black or African American women and 6632 [55.8%] were non-Hispanic White women]). In the discovery set, participants who had FHBC were more likely to have a higher mean volumetric percent density compared with participants with no FHBC (11.1% vs 9.0%). In the multivariable-adjusted model, volumetric percent density was 25% higher (odds ratio [OR], 1.25 ;95% CI, 1.12-1.41) in women with FHBC compared with women without FHBC; and 24% higher (OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.10-1.40) in women who had 1 affected relative, but not significantly higher in women who had at least 2 affected relatives (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.95-2.07) compared with women with no relatives affected. In the validation set, women with a positive FHBC were more likely to have dense breasts (BI-RADS 3-4) compared with women with no FHBC (BI-RADS 3: 41.1% vs 38.8%; BI-RADS 4: 10.5% vs 7.7%). In the multivariable-adjusted model, the odds of having dense breasts (BI-RADS 3-4) were 30% higher (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.17-1.45) in women with FHBC compared with women without FHBC; and 29% higher (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.14-1.45) in women who had 1 affected relative, but not significantly higher in women who had at least 2 affected relatives (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.85-2.23) compared with women with no relatives affected.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study, having an FHBC was positively associated with mammographic breast density in premenopausal women. Our findings highlight the heritable component of mammographic breast density and underscore the need to begin annual screening early in premenopausal women with a family history of breast cancer.

Project description:BackgroundMammographic density is one of the strongest risk factors for breast cancer. In the general population, mammographic density can be modified by various exposures; whether this is true for women a strong family history is not known. Thus, we evaluated the association between reproductive, hormonal, and lifestyle risk factors and mammographic density among women with a strong family history of breast cancer but no BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.MethodsWe included 97 premenopausal and 59 postmenopausal women (age range: 27-68 years). Risk factor data was extracted from the research questionnaire closest in time to the mammogram performed nearest to enrollment. The Cumulus software was used to measure percent density, dense area, and non-dense area for each mammogram. Multivariate generalized linear models were used to evaluate the relationships between breast cancer risk factors and measures of mammographic density, adjusting for relevant covariates.ResultsAmong premenopausal women, those who had two live births had a mean percent density of 28.8% vs. 41.6% among women who had one live birth (P=0.04). Women with a high body weight had a lower mean percent density compared to women with a low body weight among premenopausal (17.6% vs. 33.2%; P=0.0006) and postmenopausal women (8.7% vs. 14.7%; P=0.04). Among premenopausal women, those who smoked for 14 years or longer had a lower mean dense area compared to women who smoked for a shorter duration (25.3cm2 vs. 53.1cm2; P=0.002). Among postmenopausal women, former smokers had a higher mean percent density (19.5% vs. 10.8%; P=0.003) and dense area (26.9% vs. 16.4%; P=0.01) compared to never smokers. After applying the Bonferroni correction, the association between body weight and percent density among premenopausal women remained statistically significant.ConclusionsIn this cohort of women with a strong family history of breast cancer, body weight was associated with mammographic density. These findings suggest that mammographic density may explain the underlying relationship between some of these risk factors and breast cancer risk, and lend support for the inclusion of mammographic density into risk prediction models.

Project description:Background Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) breast density categories assigned by interpreting radiologists often influence decisions surrounding supplemental breast cancer screening and risk assessment. The landscape of mammographic screening continuously evolves, and different mammographic screening modalities may result in different perception of density, reflected in different assignment of BI-RADS density categories. Purpose To investigate the effect of screening mammography modality on BI-RADS breast density assessments. Materials and Methods Data were retrospectively analyzed from 24 736 individual women (42.3% [10 455 of 24 736] white women, 57.7% [14 281 of 24 736] black women; mean age, 56.3 years; age range, 40.0-74.9 years) who underwent from one to seven mammographic screening examinations from September 2010 through February 2017 (60 766 examinations). Three screening modalities were used: digital mammography alone (8935 examinations); digital mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT; 30 779 examinations); and synthetic mammography with DBT (21 052 examinations). Random-effects logistic regression analysis was performed to estimate the likelihood of assignment to high versus low BI-RADS density category according to each modality, adjusted for ethnicity, age, body mass index (BMI), and radiologist. The interactions of modality with ethnicity and BMI on density categorization were also tested with the model. Results Women screened with DBT versus digital mammography alone had lower likelihood regarding categorization of high density breasts (digital mammography and DBT vs digital mammography: odds ratio, 0.69 [95% confidence interval: 0.61, 0.80], P < .001; synthetic mammography and DBT vs digital mammography: odds ratio, 0.43 [95% confidence interval: 0.37, 0.50], P < .001). Lower likelihood of high density was also observed at synthetic mammography and DBT compared with digital mammography and DBT (odds ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval: 0.56, 0.69; P < .001). There were interactions of modality with ethnicity (P = .007) and BMI (P = .003) on breast density assessment, with greater differences in density categorization according to modality observed for black women than for white women and groups with higher BMI. Conclusion Breast density categorization may vary by screening mammographic modality, and this effect appears to vary by ethnicity and body mass index. © RSNA, 2019 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Philpotts in this issue.

Project description:BackgroundAttention in the 2000s on the importance of mammographic density led us to study screening sensitivity, breast cancer incidence, and associations with risk factors by mammographic density in Danish breast cancer screening programs. Here, we summarise our approaches and findings.MethodsDichotomized density codes: fatty, equal to BI-RADS density code 1 and part of 2, and other mixed/dense data from the 1990s-were available from two counties, and BI-RADS density codes from one region were available from 2012/13. Density data were linked with data on vital status, incident breast cancer, and potential risk factors. We calculated screening sensitivity by combining data on screen-detected and interval cancers. We used cohorts to study high density as a predictor of breast cancer risk; cross-sectional data to study the association between life style factors and density, adjusting for age and body mass index (BMI); and time trends to study the prevalence of high density across birth cohorts.ResultsSensitivity decreased with increasing density from 78% in women with BI-RADS 1 to 47% in those with BI-RADS 4. For women with mixed/dense compared with those with fatty breasts, the rate ratio of incident breast cancer was 2.45 (95% CI 2.14-2.81). The percentage of women with mixed/dense breasts decreased with age, but at a higher rate the later the women were born. Among users of postmenopausal hormone therapy, the percentage of women with mixed/dense breasts was higher than in non-users, but the patterns across birth cohorts were similar. The occurrence of mixed/dense breast at screening age decreased by a z-score unit of BMI at age 13-odds ratio (OR) 0.56 (95% CI 0.53-0.58)-and so did breast cancer risk and hazard ratio (HR) 0.92 (95% CI 0.84-1.00), but it changed to HR 1.01 (95% CI 0.93-1.11) when controlled for density. Age and BMI adjusted associations between life style factors and density were largely close to unity; physical activity OR 1.06 (95% CI 0.93-1.21); alcohol consumption OR 1.01 (95% CI 0.81-1.27); air pollution OR 0.96 (95% 0.93-1.01) per 20 ?g/m3; and traffic noise OR 0.94 (95% CI 0.86-1.03) per 10 dB. Weak negative associations were seen for diabetes OR 0.61 (95% CI 0.40-0.92) and cigarette smoking OR 0.86 (95% CI 0.75-0.99), and a positive association was found with hormone therapy OR 1.24 (95% 1.14-1.35).ConclusionOur data indicate that breast tissue in middle-aged women is highly dependent on childhood body constitution while adult life-style plays a modest role, underlying the need for a long-term perspective in primary prevention of breast cancer.

Dataset Information

Mammographic density and breast cancer risk in breast screening assessment cases and women with a family history of breast cancer.

Background

Aim

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Mammographic density and breast cancer risk in breast screening assessment cases and women with a family history of breast cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets