CEBP Susan G. Komen for the Cure-AACR Outstanding Investigator Award for Breast Cancer Research Translational Cancer Medicine 2008: Cancer Clinical Trials and Personalized Medicine
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cancer Research Clinical Cancer Research
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Research Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Journals Portal Cancer Reviews Online
Annual Meeting Education Book Cell Growth & Differentiation

Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention 16, 921-928, May 1, 2007. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-06-1047
© 2007 American Association for Cancer Research

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Vachon, C. M.
Right arrow Articles by Sellers, T. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Vachon, C. M.
Right arrow Articles by Sellers, T. A.

Longitudinal Trends in Mammographic Percent Density and Breast Cancer Risk

Celine M. Vachon1, V. Shane Pankratz1, Christopher G. Scott1, Shaun D. Maloney1, Karthik Ghosh1, Kathleen R. Brandt1, Tia Milanese1, Michael J. Carston1 and Thomas A. Sellers2

1 Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota and 2 H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida

Requests for reprints: Celine M. Vachon, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Charlton 6-239, 200 First Street Southwest, Rochester, MN 55905. Phone: 507-284-9977; Fax: 507-284-2478. E-mail: vachon{at}mayo.edu

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)




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Am J EpidemiolHome page
C. Byrne
Invited Commentary: Assessing Breast Density Change--Lessons for Future Studies
Am. J. Epidemiol., May 1, 2008; 167(9): 1037 - 1040.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev.Home page
K. Ghosh, K. R. Brandt, T. A. Sellers, C. Reynolds, C. G. Scott, S. D. Maloney, M. J. Carston, V. S. Pankratz, and C. M. Vachon
Association of Mammographic Density with the Pathology of Subsequent Breast Cancer among Postmenopausal Women
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., April 1, 2008; 17(4): 872 - 879.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cancer Research Clinical Cancer Research
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Research Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Journals Portal Cancer Reviews Online
Annual Meeting Education Book Cell Growth & Differentiation
Copyright © 2007 by the American Association for Cancer Research.