Brandt, Kathleen R.

AbstractBackground: Limited studies have examined the associations between mammographic density and subsequent breast tumor characteristics.Methods: Eligible women were part of a case-control study of postmenopausal breast cancer, were 40 years or older and had a routine mammogram 4 years or more before their diagnosis. Mammographic density (percent density, dense area, and nondense area) was estimated using a computer-assisted thresholding program. At the time of cancer diagnosis, cases were classified as asymptomatic or symptomatic based on medical record review and breast imaging workup. Pathologic review was done blinded to the density status. Linear regression models and tests for trend examined the association between pathologic characteristics of the breast tumor and the components of density for all participants, and stratified by symptom status at diagnosis.Results: Of the 286 eligible cases, 77% were 60 years or older and mean percent density was 29.5% (SD, 14.6%). Density was not significantly associated with tumor size (P = 0.22), histologic type (P = 0.77), estrogen receptor (P = 0.11) or progesterone receptor (P = 0.37) status, mitotic activity (P = 0.12), or nuclear pleomorphism (P = 0.09; P values for percent density). An inverse association was suggested between tumor grade and percent density (32.0%, 30.3%, 26.7% for grades 1-3; P = 0.06 for trend). The inverse association with tumor grade and its components (nuclear pleomorphism and tubular differentiation) was only evident among the 97 symptomatic women; positive associations of estrogen receptor (P = 0.009) and progesterone receptor (P = 0.04) were also seen with percent density only in this subgroup.Conclusions: The inverse association between tumor grade and percent density in the symptomatic population could inform the biology of the association between mammographic density and breast cancer risk. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008;17(4):872–9)

Abstract Background: Mammographic density is a strong risk factor for breast cancer. However, whether changes in mammographic density are associated with risk remains unclear. Materials and Methods: A study of 372 incident breast cancer cases and 713 matched controls was conducted within the Mayo Clinic mammography screening practice. Controls were matched on age, exam date, residence, menopause, interval between, and number of mammograms. All serial craniocaudal mammograms 10 years before ascertainment were digitized, and quantitative measures of percent density (PD) were estimated using a thresholding method. Data on potential confounders were abstracted from medical records. Logistic regression models with generalized estimating equations were used to evaluate the interactions among PD at earliest mammogram, time from earliest to each serial mammogram, and absolute change in PD between the earliest and subsequent mammograms. Analyses were done separately for PD measures from the ipsilateral and contralateral breast and also by use of hormone therapy (HT). Results: Subjects had an average of five mammograms available, were primarily postmenopausal (83%), and averaged 61 years at the earliest mammogram. Mean PD at earliest mammogram was higher for cases (31%) than controls (27%; ipsilateral side). There was no evidence of an association between change in PD and breast cancer risk by time. Compared with no change, an overall reduction of 10% PD (lowest quartile of change) was associated with an odds ratio of 0.9997 and an increase of 6.5% PD (highest quartile of change) with an odds ratio of 1.002. The same results held within the group of 220 cases and 340 controls never using HT. Among the 124 cases and 337 controls known to use HT during the interval, there was a statistically significant interaction between change in PD and time since the earliest mammogram (P = 0.01). However, in all groups, the risk associated with the earliest PD remained a stronger predictor of risk than change in PD. Conclusion: We observed no association between change in PD with breast cancer risk among all women and those never using HT. However, the interaction between change in PD and time should be evaluated in other populations. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2007;16(5):921–8)

Abstract Mammographic breast density is a strong risk factor for breast cancer but whether breast density is a general marker of susceptibility or is specific to the location of the eventual cancer is unknown. A study of 372 incident breast cancer cases and 713 matched controls was conducted within the Mayo Clinic mammography screening practice. Mammograms on average 7 years before breast cancer were digitized, and quantitative measures of percentage density and dense area from each side and view were estimated. A regional density estimate accounting for overall percentage density was calculated from both mammogram views. Location of breast cancer and potential confounders were abstracted from medical records. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate associations, and C-statistics were used to evaluate the strength of risk prediction. There were increasing trends in breast cancer risk with increasing quartiles of percentage density and dense area, irrespective of the side of the breast with cancer (Ptrends < 0.001). Percentage density from the ipsilateral side [craniocaudal (CC): odds ratios (ORs), 1.0 (ref), 1.7, 3.1, and 3.1; mediolateral oblique (MLO): ORs, 1.0 (ref), 1.5, 2.2, and 2.8] and the contralateral side [CC: ORs, 1.0 (ref), 1.8, 2.2, and 3.7; MLO: ORs, 1.0 (ref), 1.6, 1.9, and 2.5] similarly predicted case-control status (C-statistics, 0.64-65). Accounting for overall percentage density, density in the region where the cancer subsequently developed was not a significant risk factor [CC: 1.0 (ref), 1.3, 1.0, and 1.2; MLO: 1.0 (ref), 1.1, 1.0, and 1.1 for increasing quartiles]. Results did not change when examining mammograms 3 years on average before the cancer. Overall mammographic density seems to represent a general marker of breast cancer risk that is not specific to breast side or location of the eventual cancer. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2007;16(1):43–9)