Mammographic density and breast cancer risk: the role of the fat surrounding the fibroglandular tissue.

Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, Str. 6,131, University Medical Centre Utrecht, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Breast cancer research: BCR (Impact Factor: 5.88). 12/2011; 13(5):R103. DOI: 10.1186/bcr3044
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Both the percent of mammographic density and absolute dense (fibroglandular) area are strong breast cancer risk factors. The role of non-dense (fat) breast tissue is not often investigated, but we hypothesize that this also influences risk. In this study we investigated the independent effects of dense and fat tissue, as well as their combined effect on postmenopausal breast cancer risk.
We performed a nested case-control study within the EPIC-NL cohort (358 postmenopausal breast cancer cases and 859 postmenopausal controls). We used multivariate logistic regression analyses to estimate breast cancer odds ratios adjusted for body mass index and other breast cancer risk factors.
Large areas of dense (upper (Q5) vs lower quintile (Q1): OR 2.8 95% CI 1.7 to 4.8) and fat tissue (Q5 vs Q1: OR 2.4; 95% CI 1.3 to 4.2) were independently associated with higher breast cancer risk. The combined measure showed that the highest risk was found in women with both a large (above median) area of dense and fat tissue.
Fibroglandular and breast fat tissue have independent effects on breast cancer risk. The results indicate that the non-dense tissue, which represents the local breast fat, increases risk, even independent of body mass index (BMI). When studying dense breast tissue in relation to breast cancer risk, adjustment for non-dense tissue seems to change risk estimates to a larger extent than adjustment for BMI. This indicates that adjustment for non-dense tissue should be considered when studying associations between dense areas and breast cancer risk.

1 Bookmark
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has gained acceptance as an adjunct to digital mammography (DM) in screening. Now that breast density reporting is mandated in several States in America, it is increasingly important that the methods of breast density measurement be robust, reliable and consistent. Breast density assessment with DBT needs some consideration since quantitative methods are modeled for 2D mammography. A review of methods used for breast density assessment with DBT was performed. Existing evidence shows Cumulus has better reproducibility than BIRADS but still suffers from subjective variability; MedDensity is limited by image noise, whilst Volpara and Quantra are robust and consistent. Reported BI-RADS inter-reader breast density agreement (k) ranged from 0.65 to 0.91, with inter-reader correlation (r) ranging from 0.7 to 0.93. The correlations (r) between BI-RADS and quantitative methods are: Cumulus (0.54 to 0.94); MedDensity (0.48 to 0.78). Reported agreement (k) between BI-RADS and Volpara is 0.953. Breast density correlation between DBT and 2-dimensional mammography ranged from 0.73 to 0.97, with agreement (k) ranging from 0.56 to 0.96. To avoid variability and provide more reliable breast density information for clinicians, automated volumetric methods are preferred.
    The British journal of radiology 08/2014; · 2.11 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Numerous studies established high mammographic density (MD) as a significant breast cancer risk. By adopting both radiological and epidemiological perspectives, we analysed the capacity of this radiological parameter to express an individual level of risk and the methods for assessing the relationship between MD categories and risk. MD is unable to identify individual underlying anatomical and physiological components. Many factors affect accurate and reproducible measurements and consequently classifications of MD. Significant relative risks were found by comparing the MD categories in the tails of distribution (i.e. the group of women with the lowest MD to that with the highest MD), which represent <10 % of women in each group: the majority of the population was ignored. When a relevant threshold of MD was applied to compare another group and the entire population was included to compare the two groups, some studies showed no significant or only moderate relative risk (RR) between women with readings above and those below the threshold. Sensitivity and specificity remain unknown. MD cannot be considered a worthwhile test by which to categorically identify high-risk women in screening. Key points • Unknown individual anatomical and physiological components do not express the risk level.• The epidemiological conditions are not relevant to distinguish a high-risk category.• The most relevant studies show no or moderate risks.
    European radiology. 06/2014;
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To evaluate the association between birth weight and early life body size with adult mammographic density in the peer-reviewed literature.
    Cancer Causes and Control 07/2014; · 2.96 Impact Factor

Preview (2 Sources)

1 Download
Available from