This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Supplementary Data, Kavanagh, et al. Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Kavanagh, A. M. Articles by English, D. R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Kavanagh, A. M. Articles by English, D. R. Related Collections Early Detection Early Detection: Imaging

Using Mammographic Density to Improve Breast Cancer Screening Outcomes

¹ Key Centre for Women's Health in Society, School of Population Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; ² Biostatistics and Epidemiology Cluster, IARC, Lyon, France; ³ St. Vincent's BreastScreen, St Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia; ⁴ Cancer Epidemiology Centre, Cancer Council of Victoria, Melbourne, Australia; ⁵ Centre for MEGA Epidemiology, Melbourne School of Population Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; and ⁶ Victorian Cervical Cytology Registry, Melbourne, Australia

Requests for reprints: Anne M. Kavanagh, Key Centre for Women's Health in Society, University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia. Phone: 61-3-8344-0616; Fax: 61-3-9347-9824. E-mail: a.kavanagh{at}unimelb.edu.au

It is possible that the performance of mammographic screening would be improved if it is targeted at women at higher risk of breast cancer or who are more likely to have their cancer missed at screening, through more intensive screening or alternative screening modalities. We conducted a case-control study within a population-based Australian mammographic screening program (1,706 invasive breast cancers and 5,637 randomly selected controls). We used logistic regression to examine the effects of breast density, age, and hormone therapy use, all known to influence both breast cancer risk and the sensitivity of mammographic screening, on the risk of small (15 mm) and large (>15 mm) screen-detected and interval breast cancers. The risk of small screen-detected cancers was not associated with density, but the risk of large screen-detected cancers was nearly 3-fold for the second quintile and approximately 4-fold for the four highest density categories (third and fourth quintiles and the two highest deciles) compared with the lowest quintile. The risk of interval cancers increased monotonically across the density categories [highest decile odds ratio (OR), 4.65; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 2.96-7.31]. The risk of small and large screen-detected cancers, but not interval cancers, increased with age. After adjusting for age and density, hormone therapy use was associated with a moderately elevated risk of interval cancers (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.12-1.81). The effectiveness of the screening program could be improved if density were to be used to identify women most likely to have poor screening outcomes. There would be little additional benefit in targeting screening based on age and hormone therapy use. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008;17(10):2818–24)