Mammographic parenchymal patterns and risk factors for breast cancer.

Ernster, Virginia L.; St, Sacks; Peterson, Carly; Schweitzer, Robert J.

doi:10.1148/radiology.134.3.7355207

Cited by 35 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In two of these reports (Egan & Mosteller, 1977;Egan & McSweeney, 1979) differences in breastcancer incidence according to mammographic pattern in the cohort have been partly obscured by adding to them the prevalence of breast cancer observed at first examination, the latter possibly having been influenced by the referral bias described above. Two cohort studies have not confirmed Wolfe's findings (Moskowitz et al, 1980;Ernster et al, 1980) but in both there was a relatively small number of cases of breast cancer and a short follow-up.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…Some studies report the incidence of breast cancer in a cohort of women classified according to their initial mammographic characteristics (Egan & Mosteller, 1977;Egan & McSweeney, 1979;Krook et al, 1978;Krook, 1978;Threatt et al, 1980;Moskowitz et al, 1980;Ernster et al, 1980). In others, the prevalence of breast cancer detected at the first examination within each category of mammographic pattern is described (Egan & Mosteller, 1977;Krook, 1978;Kessler & Fischedick, 1980).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Bias and the association of mammographic parenchymal patterns with breast cancer

Boyd¹,

O’Sullivan²,

Campbell³

et al. 1982

Br J Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary.-We have carried out a case-control study to evaluate the association between Wolfe's mammographic patterns and the risk of breast cancer, and to examine the influence of control selection and the radiologist who read the films upon the results obtained.Mammograms of the non-cancerous breast of 183 women with unilateral breast cancer were compared with mammograms from two age-matched control groups: a group of asymptomatic women attending a screening centre, and a group of symptomatic women referred for the diagnostic evaluation of suspected breast disease. Films were arranged in random sequence and independently classified by 3 radiologists.A strong and statistically significant association was found between mammographic dysplasia and breast cancer when controls from the screening centre were compared to cases, but not when cases were compared to women referred for the diagnostic evaluation of breast disease. This result appears to arise in part because of an association between symptoms of benign breast disease and mammographic dysplasia, and suggests that some previous negative studies of the association of mammographic patterns with breast cancer may have arisen from the inclusion of symptomatic subjects as controls.WTOLFE HAS DESCRIBED) a method of classifying the mammographic appearances of ductal prominence and dysplasia that is reported to identify individuals at different risks for the development of breast cancer (Wolfe, 1976a,b). However, not all subsequent studies of these mammographic patterns by other investigators have confirmed this finding. A review of these studies has revealed several differences in research design and methodology that might explain the conflicting results.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Bias and the association of mammographic parenchymal patterns with breast cancer

Boyd¹,

O’Sullivan²,

Campbell³

et al. 1982

Br J Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A further 19 studies were excluded from the main analysis, as they were not independent of other included studies (studies; refs. [8][9][10][11][12][13][14] as well as 12 studies from Breast Cancer Detection and Demonstration Project centers (15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26) that were likely to have been subsets of two studies that included cases from all or most centers (2, 27), although they were considered in subgroup analyses. Four articles were found manually (28-31), giving a total of 42 included articles for the main analysis.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Breast Density and Parenchymal Patterns as Markers of Breast Cancer Risk: A Meta-analysis

McCormack

dos‐Santos‐Silva

2006

Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers &Amp; Prevention

1,858

1,458

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mammographic features are associated with breast cancer risk, but estimates of the strength of the association vary markedly between studies, and it is uncertain whether the association is modified by other risk factors. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of publications on mammographic patterns in relation to breast cancer risk. Random effects models were used to combine study-specific relative risks. Aggregate data for >14,000 cases and 226,000 noncases from 42 studies were included. Associations were consistent in studies conducted in the general population but were highly heterogeneous in symptomatic populations. They were much stronger for percentage density than for Wolfe grade or Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System classification and were 20% to 30% stronger in studies of incident than of prevalent cancer. No differences were observed by age/menopausal status at mammography or by ethnicity. For percentage density measured using prediagnostic mammograms, combined relative risks of incident breast cancer in the general population were 1.79 (95% confidence interval, 1.48-2.16), 2.11 (1.70-2.63), 2.92 (2.49-3.42), and 4.64 (3.64-5.91) for categories 5% to 24%, 25% to 49%, 50% to 74%, and z75% relative to <5%. This association remained strong after excluding cancers diagnosed in the first-year postmammography. This review explains some of the heterogeneity in associations of breast density with breast cancer risk and shows that, in well-conducted studies, this is one of the strongest risk factors for breast cancer. It also refutes the suggestion that the association is an artifact of masking bias or that it is only present in a restricted age range. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15(6):1159-69)

show abstract

“…Similarly, lobular carcinoma in situ is considered a strong risk marker of future breast cancer in both breasts (32,33), and there is recent evidence that ductal carcinoma in situ may also be associated with ipsilateral (OR, 1.9) and contralateral (OR, 2.0) breast cancer (34). Breast density is associated with several established risk factors for breast cancer, including positive associations with HRT, nulliparity, late age at first birth, alcohol intake, and inverse associations with age, postmenopausal status, and BMI (26,30,(35)(36)(37)(38)(39)(40). These risk factors account for only 20% to 30% of variation in breast density (26,28,29) and there is evidence that genetics and their interaction with environment likely account for the remaining variation (37,41).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mammographic Breast Density as a General Marker of Breast Cancer Risk

Vachon

Brandt

Ghosh

et al. 2007

Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers &Amp; Prevention

185

165

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 (P trends < 0.001). Percentage density from the ipsilateral side [craniocaudal (CC): odds ratios (ORs), 1.0 (ref), 1.7, 3

show abstract

Mammographic parenchymal patterns and risk factors for breast cancer.

Cited by 35 publications

References 0 publications

Bias and the association of mammographic parenchymal patterns with breast cancer

Bias and the association of mammographic parenchymal patterns with breast cancer

Breast Density and Parenchymal Patterns as Markers of Breast Cancer Risk: A Meta-analysis

Mammographic Breast Density as a General Marker of Breast Cancer Risk

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About