Hormone Replacement Therapy, Percent Mammographic Density, and Sensitivity of Mammography

  1. Anne M. Kavanagh1,
  2. Jennifer Cawson2,
  3. Graham B. Byrnes3,
  4. Graham G. Giles4,
  5. Georgina Marr4,
  6. Bin Tong1,
  7. Dorota M. Gertig3 and
  8. John L. Hopper3
  1. 1Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, La Trobe University; 2St. Vincent's BreastScreen, St. Vincent's Hospital and 3Centre for Genetic Epidemiology Centre, Department of Public Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia and 4Cancer Epidemiology Centre, the Cancer Council of Victoria, Carlton, Victoria, Australia
  1. Requests for reprints:
    Anne M. Kavanagh, Key Centre for Women's Health in Society, School of Population Health, University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010. Phone: 61-3-8344-7394; Fax: 61-3-9347-9824. E-mail: a.kavanagh{at}unimelb.edu.au

Abstract

Objective: We examine to what extent the lower mammographic sensitivity found in hormone replacement therapy (HRT) users can be explained by any association of HRT use with higher mammographic density and more difficult to detect cancers.

Methods: We used logistic regression to estimate the odds of a false-negative screen (a breast cancer diagnosed in the 24 months after a negative screening examination) for HRT users and to estimate, and adjust for, mammographic density (measured on a continuous scale, blinded, using a reliable, computer-assisted method), tumor characteristics (size, grade, and morphology), and potential confounders (age, symptom status, family history, and prior screening) among women ages ≥55 years who attended BreastScreen Victoria for first round screening mammography in 1994 and 1995 (1,086 breast cancers) and for subsequent round screening (471 breast cancers) in 1995 and 1996.

Results: After adjusting for confounders, HRT users were more likely to have a false-negative screen [first round: odds ratio (OR), 1.99; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.4-2.9; subsequent round: OR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.4-3.8]. This effect was modestly attenuated by adjusting for mammographic density (first round: OR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.0-2.3; subsequent round: OR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.2-3.3). Adjusting for tumor characteristics resulted in a modest increase in the odds of a false negative at first round but had no effect at subsequent round.

Conclusions: Mammographic density only partly explains the effect of HRT on sensitivity. Further research needs to clarify whether hyperemic breast tissue changes affect cancer detectability in HRT users as well as the possibility that the quality of mammography may be poor in some HRT users.

Footnotes

  • 4 Janet Guthrie, personal communication.

  • Grant support: Victorian Health Promotion Foundation grant 97-0210, Victorian Department of Human Services, Kodak Australia, VicHealth senior fellowships (A.M. Kavanagh and D.M. Gertig), and National Health and Medical Research Council professorial fellowship (J.L. Hopper).

  • The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

    • Accepted December 31, 2004.
    • Received March 3, 2004.
    • Revision received May 6, 2004.
« Previous | Next Article »Table of Contents