Article

Association between breast density and subsequent breast cancer following treatment for ductal carcinoma In situ

Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco Cancer Center, 1600 Divisadero Avenue, B606 San Francisco, CA 94115, USA.
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention (Impact Factor: 4.32). 01/2008; 16(12):2587-93. DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-0458
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Risk of invasive cancer following treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is associated with both treatment- and tumor-related factors. However, it is unknown whether stromal factors such as breast density may also influence subsequent invasive breast events. We investigated whether breast density is an independent predictor of subsequent breast events among women treated for DCIS. Population: A prospective cohort study of 3,274 women ages 30 to 93 in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium treated with lumpectomy for DCIS between 1993 and 2005. All subjects had an American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) breast density measure recorded prior to diagnosis.
Ipsilateral and contralateral breast cancer following lumpectomy for DCIS were ascertained through state tumor registries, regional Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results program or pathology databases. A Cox proportional hazard model was used to compare adjusted risk of breast cancer among women with high (BI-RADS 3 or 4) versus low (BI-RADS 1 or 2) breast density.
During a median follow-up period of 39 months (0-132 months), 133 women developed invasive breast cancer. After adjusting for age and radiation treatment, high breast density was associated with increased hazard for contralateral (hazard ratio, 3.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-6.1) but not ipsilateral (hazard ratio, 1.0; 95% confidence interval, 0.6-1.6) invasive breast events.
High breast density is associated with contralateral, but not ipsilateral, invasive breast cancer following lumpectomy for DCIS. Thus, women with DCIS and high breast density may especially benefit from antiestrogenic therapy to reduce the risk of contralateral invasive disease.

0 Followers
 · 
83 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Breast density is strongly and independently related to the risk of breast cancer. Women with very dense breasts may have up to five times higher chances of developing malignancy as compared to those with less breast density. Detecting lesions in extremely dense or heterogeneous breasts on screening mammogram can be difficult. We report a case of incidental bilateral breast malignancy in an asymptomatic patient in whom mammogram and screening ultrasound were equivocal.
    Indian Journal of Radiology and Imaging 01/2013; 23(3):219-222. DOI:10.4103/0971-3026.120269
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There has been considerable recent interest in the genetic, biological and epidemiological basis of mammographic density (MD), and the search for causative links between MD and breast cancer (BC) risk. This report will critically review the current literature on MD and summarize the current evidence for its association with BC. Keywords 'mammographic dens*', 'dense mammary tissue' or 'percent dens*' were used to search the existing literature in English on PubMed and Medline. All reports were critically analyzed. The data were assigned to one of the following aspects of MD: general association with BC, its relationship with the breast hormonal milieu, the cellular basis of MD, the generic variations of MD, and its significance in the clinical setting. MD adjusted for age, and BMI is associated with increased risk of BC diagnosis, advanced tumour stage at diagnosis and increased risk of both local recurrence and second primary cancers. The MD measures that predict BC risk have high heritability, and to date several genetic markers associated with BC risk have been found to also be associated with these MD risk predictors. Change in MD could be a predictor of the extent of chemoprevention with tamoxifen. Although the biological and genetic pathways that determine and perhaps modulate MD remain largely unresolved, significant inroads are being made into the understanding of MD, which may lead to benefits in clinical screening, assessment and treatment strategies. This review provides a timely update on the current understanding of MD's association with BC risk.
    Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 03/2014; 144(3). DOI:10.1007/s10549-014-2901-2 · 4.20 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Breast cancer screening holds a prominent place in public health, health care delivery, policy, and women's health care decisions. Several factors are driving shifts in how population-based breast cancer screening is approached, including advanced imaging technologies, health system performance measures, health care reform, concern for “overdiagnosis,” and improved understanding of risk. Maximizing benefits while minimizing the harms of screening requires moving from a “1-size-fits-all” guideline paradigm to more personalized strategies. A refined conceptual model for breast cancer screening is needed to align women's risks and preferences with screening regimens. A conceptual model of personalized breast cancer screening is presented herein that emphasizes key domains and transitions throughout the screening process, as well as multilevel perspectives. The key domains of screening awareness, detection, diagnosis, and treatment and survivorship are conceptualized to function at the level of the patient, provider, facility, health care system, and population/policy arena. Personalized breast cancer screening can be assessed across these domains with both process and outcome measures. Identifying, evaluating, and monitoring process measures in screening is a focus of a National Cancer Institute initiative entitled PROSPR (Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens), which will provide generalizable evidence for a risk-based model of breast cancer screening, The model presented builds on prior breast cancer screening models and may serve to identify new measures to optimize benefits-to-harms tradeoffs in population-based screening, which is a timely goal in the era of health care reform. Cancer 2014. © 2014 American Cancer Society.
    Cancer 10/2014; 120(19). DOI:10.1002/cncr.28771 · 4.90 Impact Factor