Skip to main content
  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

AACR logo

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CEBP Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Progress and Priorities
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Disparities Collection
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Informing Public Health Policy
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CEBP Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Progress and Priorities
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Disparities Collection
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Informing Public Health Policy
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

Research Articles

Insulin-like Growth Factor and Mammographic Density in Postmenopausal Norwegian Women

Yngve Bremnes, Giske Ursin, Nils Bjurstam, Sabina Rinaldi, Rudolf Kaaks and Inger T. Gram
Yngve Bremnes
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Giske Ursin
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nils Bjurstam
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sabina Rinaldi
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rudolf Kaaks
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Inger T. Gram
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-06-0788 Published January 2007
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) is associated with breast cancer risk among premenopausal women but rarely among postmenopausal women. Recent data from two European studies suggested an increased risk of breast cancer with increasing levels of IGF-I among women >50 years old or among postmenopausal hormone therapy users ≥55 years old. Mammographic density is one of the strongest risk factors, and possibly an intermediate marker, for breast cancer. We examined the relationship between IGF and mammographic density among postmenopausal women overall and according to hormone therapy use. Altogether, 977 postmenopausal participants in the Norwegian governmental mammographic screening program had IGF concentrations measured by ELISA. Mammograms were classified according to percent and absolute mammographic densities using a previously validated computer-assisted method. After adjustment for age, number of children, age at menopause, body mass index, and hormone therapy use, both plasma IGF-I concentration (Ptrend = 0.02) and IGF-I/IGF binding protein 3 ratio (Ptrend = 0.02) were positively associated with percent mammographic density. The magnitudes of differences in percent mammographic density between women in the lowest and highest quartiles of IGF-I concentrations were 1.5% absolute difference and 21% relative difference. These associations were similar with absolute mammographic density as the outcome variable. When the analyses were stratified according to hormone therapy use, the associations between IGF-I and mammographic density were significant among noncurrent users (Ptrend = 0.03). In conclusion, we found a positive but weak association between plasma IGF-I concentrations and both percent and absolute mammographic densities among postmenopausal women. These associations were found among noncurrent hormone therapy users but not among current users. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2007;16(1):57–62)

  • Mammography
  • Breast density
  • Insulin-like growth factor
  • Postmenopausal
  • Breast cancer

Introduction

Mammographic density is one of the strongest independent risk factors for breast cancer and possibly an intermediate marker for breast cancer (1). Women with high mammographic density have a 5- to 6-fold increase in breast cancer risk (2, 3).

Insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) has almost consistently been shown to be associated with breast cancer risk in young women (4-10), but more rarely so in older women (11-14). Meta-analyses of IGF-I and breast cancer association have shown that the effect differs by menopausal status rather than age (4-7, 10). However, the mechanism for this effect modification is not understood. Recently, a European study found an increased risk of breast cancer with increasing levels of IGF-I among women >50 years old (13). Another European study found an association of IGF-I with breast cancer among women ≥55 years old, especially among postmenopausal hormone therapy users (15).

Among premenopausal women, the association between IGF-I and mammographic density seems to mirror that between IGF-I and breast cancer (16-21). All studies of IGF-I and mammographic density association among postmenopausal women have thus far been restricted to noncurrent users of hormone therapy from North America (16, 17, 19, 20, 22) and United Kingdom (21). The only statistically significant finding among postmenopausal women thus far has been an inverse relationship between IGF-I/IGF binding protein 3 (IGFBP-3) ratio and percent mammographic density among 43 overweight former hormone therapy users (22).

The objective of this cross-sectional study was to examine the relationship between circulating concentrations of IGF-I and IGFBP-3, or IGF-I/IGFBP-3 molar ratio, and quantitative mammographic density among Norwegian postmenopausal women overall and according to hormone therapy use.

Materials and Methods

Study Population

The Mammography and Breast Cancer Study was conducted among postmenopausal women, ages 55 to 71 years, residing in the municipality of Tromsø, Norway, and attending the population-based Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program at the University Hospital of North Norway. The women were recruited in the spring of 2001 and 2002. After the women had undergone their screening mammograms, they were interviewed by a trained research nurse about reproductive and menstrual factors, previous history of cancer, smoking status, and use of postmenopausal hormone therapy or other medications. The participants had their height measured to the nearest centimeter and their weight measured to the nearest half kilogram. The women had blood samples drawn and each was subsequently given a questionnaire to be completed at home, eliciting information on demographics, additional menstrual and reproductive factors, as well as lifestyle and dietary factors. All women signed an informed consent. The National Data Inspection Board and the Regional Committee for Medical Research Ethics approved the study. Altogether, 1,041 women were included in the study. This accounted for 70.1% of the women attending the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program during the recruitment period.

We excluded 22 women because of a previously (n = 16) or newly (n = 6) diagnosed breast cancer and one woman because of an ongoing chemotherapy treatment. Among the remaining 1,018 women, we were unable to retrieve mammograms on 11 women. Thus, 1,007 women had mammograms classified according to percent and absolute mammographic densities. More details are described elsewhere (23). We further excluded three women because they were equivocal for menopausal status and 17 women because they had not donated blood samples. In addition, 10 women were excluded due to missing IGF-I measurements, leaving 977 women for the analyses.

Mammographic Classifications

The women's left craniocaudal mammogram was digitized using a Cobrascan CX-812 scanner (Radiographic Digital Imaging, Torrance, CA) at a resolution of 150 pixels/in. Percent and absolute mammographic densities were determined using the University of Southern California Madena computer-based threshold method, which has been described in detail and validated elsewhere (24). Briefly, the method works as follows: The digitized mammographic image is viewed on a computer screen. A reader defines the total breast area using a special outlining tool. Next, the region of interest, excluding the pectoralis muscle, prominent veins, and fibrous strands, is defined. The computer software program assigns a pixel value of 0 to the darkest (black) shade in the image and a value of 255 to the lightest (white) shade, with shades of gray assigned to intermediate values. The reader then uses a tinting tool to apply a yellow tint to dense pixels with gray levels at or above some threshold X and a pixel value of ≤255. The reader searches for the best threshold where all pixels ≥X within the region of interest are considered to represent mammographic densities. The software estimates the total number of pixels and the number of tinted pixels within the region of interest. Absolute density represents the count of the tinted pixels within the region of interest. Percent density, or the fraction (%) of the breast with densities, is the ratio of absolute density to the total breast area multiplied by 100.

The reader of the mammograms was blinded to the characteristics of the study participants.

Peptide Assays

Nonfasting venous samples were obtained from study participants at the day of mammographic screening. After centrifugation, plasma samples were stored at −70°C.

IGF-I and IGFBP-3 were measured by ELISA from Diagnostic Systems Laboratories, Inc. (Webster, TX). The IGF-I assays included an acid-ethanol precipitation to extract IGF-I from its binding proteins. Measurements were done on previously never-thawed plasma samples.

All IGF-I and IGFBP-3 assays were done at the laboratory for hormone analyses (Nutrition and Cancer Group, IARC, Lyon, France), under supervision by one of the authors (S.R.). The mean intrabatch coefficients of variation were 5.1% for IGF-I and 6.1% for IGFBP-3. The interbatch coefficients of variation were 10.6% for IGF-I and 9% for IGFBP-3.

The IGF-I/IGFBP-3 molar ratio was calculated as a possible indicator of IGF-I bioavailability.

Statistical Analysis

We used ANOVA for an unbalanced design to study the association between plasma levels of IGF-I and IGFBP-3, or IGF-I/IGFBP-3 molar ratio, and mammographic density (Proc GLM, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). Percent and absolute mammographic densities were log-transformed to obtain an approximate normal distribution. The crude and adjusted mean mammographic density results were back-transformed and are presented with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Trend tests across the quartiles of IGF concentrations were done by treating the quartile categories (scored 1, 2, 3, and 4) as continuous variables in the analyses.

Each of the following factors was evaluated as a potential confounder of the relationship between IGF and mammographic density: age at screening (continuous), age at menarche (continuous), age at menopause (continuous), number of children (continuous), age at first birth (continuous), years of education (continuous), family history of breast cancer in first-degree relatives (yes, no), smoking (daily, sometimes, no), alcohol intake (g/d), hormone therapy use (ever, never, past, current; never and past hormone therapy users were also grouped as noncurrent users, whereas past and current hormone therapy users were grouped as ever users), and body mass index (BMI, weight in kilogram divided by height in meters squared; continuous).

We did univariate and multivariate analyses with models that included the above-listed variables as independent variables and mammographic density as the dependent variable. Because all the above factors were presumed to be associated with IGF concentrations, we used the following criteria to include them in the model as a confounder: The factor had to either have been previously associated with the outcome variable in this study population (23) or it changed the estimate by 10% or more when included in the multivariate model. This procedure left the following factors for inclusion in the final model as confounders: age at screening, number of children, age at menopause, BMI, and hormone therapy use.

We did stratified multivariate analyses to examine the association between IGF and mammographic density according to hormone therapy use.

Results were considered statistically significant if the two-sided P value was <0.05. We did data management and statistical analyses using the SAS statistical software package, version 9.1 (SAS Institute).

Results

Among the 977 postmenopausal women in the study population, the mean age was 61.4 years (SD, 4.6 years) and the mean age at menopause was 48.6 years (SD, 5.1 years). The median percent mammographic density was 9.6% (range, 0-69.2%), and the median mammographic absolute dense area was 14.8 cm2 (range, 0-155.2 cm2). Furthermore, mean plasma concentrations were 223.4 ng/mL (SD, 74.3 ng/mL) for IGF-I and 4,339 ng/mL (SD, 993 ng/mL) for IGFBP-3; the IGF-I/IGFBP-3 molar ratio was 0.19 (SD, 0.06). Among the women, 26% were current, 17% were past, and 57% were never hormone therapy users. Of the women, 18.4% reported a history of breast cancer in the family, whereas 9.2% reported a history of breast cancer in first-degree relatives.

Table 1 shows the crude relationship between selected variables and mean concentrations of IGF-I and IGFBP-3, or IGF-I/IGFBP-3 molar ratio, among the 977 women. The plasma concentration of IGF-I (Ptrend = 0.12) and the IGF-I/IGFBP-3 molar ratio (Ptrend = 0.11) decreased with increasing age, although not statistically significantly. The plasma concentration of IGF-I also decreased with increasing alcohol consumption (Ptrend < 0.03). The IGF-I/IGFBP-3 ratio decreased significantly with increasing BMI (Ptrend < 0.002). Plasma concentration of IGF-I and IGF-I/IGFBP-3 molar ratio showed a positive association with increasing age at menopause (both Ptrend values <0.001). Plasma IGFBP-3 decreased (Ptrend < 0.002), whereas IGF-I/IGFBP-3 ratio increased (Ptrend < 0.05), with increasing frequency of smoking (Table 1). Plasma IGF-I and IGFBP-3 concentrations were significantly lower among current users of hormone therapy compared with noncurrent users (both P values <0.001).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Selected variables in relationship with mean plasma concentrations (SD) of IGF-I and IGFBP-3 and IGF-I/IGFBP3 molar ratio among postmenopausal Norwegian women (N = 977)

In multivariate analyses, both plasma IGF-I concentration (Ptrend = 0.02) and IGF-I/IGFBP-3 ratio (Ptrend = 0.02) were positively associated with percent mammographic density (Table 2 ). Women with IGF-I concentrations in the highest quartile had a higher percent mammographic density (1.5% absolute difference, 21% relative difference) compared with women with values in the lower quartiles. The corresponding differences were 1.4% absolute difference and 19% relative difference for the IGF-I/IGFBP-3 ratio. A similar association was found between IGF-I and absolute mammographic density (Ptrend = 0.04), whereas the association with IGF-I/IGFBP-3 ratio weakened and was of borderline significance (Ptrend = 0.06).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Adjusted mean (95% CI) percent and absolute mammographic densities by quartiles of IGF-I and IGFBP-3 concentrations and IGF-I/IGFBP-3 molar ratio among 977 postmenopausal Norwegian women

When we stratified the women according to current, noncurrent, and never hormone therapy use, we found that the association between IGF-I and percent or absolute mammographic density was statistically significant only among women not currently using hormone therapy (all Ptrend values < 0.05; Table 3 ). The association between IGF-I/IGFBP-3 ratio and percent mammographic density was statistically significant among these women (Ptrend = 0.03), whereas the corresponding association with absolute mammographic density was of borderline significance (Ptrend = 0.05).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Adjusted mean (95% CI) percent and absolute mammographic densities by quartiles of IGF-I and IGFBP-3 concentrations and IGF-I/IGFBP-3 molar ratio by postmenopausal hormone therapy use among 977 Norwegian women

We also did analyses among current hormone therapy users stratified by the type of hormone therapy used; however, no associations between IGF-I and mammographic density were observed (data not shown).

We found similar associations between IGF-I and percent mammographic density overall and among noncurrent hormone therapy users when BMI was adjusted in the multivariate model as a continuous and categorized variable (tertile or quintile) and when we excluded the 5% most extreme BMI values (2.5% highest and 2.5% lowest; data not shown). The associations with IGF-I/IGFBP-3 ratio weakened when BMI was modeled excluding the women with the most extreme BMI values (data not shown).

Discussion

This population-based cross-sectional study shows a positive association between mean plasma IGF-I concentration and percent mammographic density among women not currently taking hormone therapy after adjustment for potential confounders. This association was also present when absolute mammographic density was used as the outcome variable. For both outcome variables, the absolute difference in mammographic density between women with IGF-I concentrations in the upper and lower tertiles was small. However, the relative differences were not negligible. No associations were found between IGFBP-3 and the two measures of mammographic density.

The strengths of our study are the large sample size and the fact that it was a part of a population-based screening project with a high attendance rate (25). The reader of the mammograms was experienced and blinded to the characteristics of the women. Further, the IGF-I and IGFBP-3 analyses were done in a blinded manner at a laboratory specializing on hormone measurements. It was recently argued that the association between IGF and percent mammographic density is strongly confounded by adiposity (26) and that this is only partially accounted for by adjustments for BMI, given that percent mammographic density is highly influenced by the size of the breast. Thus, another strength of our study is that we found similar associations for IGF-I and mammographic density relationship when we did the analyses using absolute mammographic density as the outcome variable.

Furthermore, the associations between IGF-I and percent mammographic density were similar when BMI was modeled as a categorized and continuous variable. We also found the expected nonlinear relationship between BMI and IGF-I previously shown in a large and several smaller studies (27-29).

One limitation is that our study was cross-sectional; therefore, we do not have information on the temporal relationship between the concentrations of IGF and mammographic density. Also, assessing mammographic density is partly based on a subjective component. However, the reader was blinded to all characteristics of the women, and we have previously shown that the reader of the mammograms had a good correlation (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.86) for a second independent reading of percent mammographic density of 37 mammograms done for as long as 18 months after the first reading (23).

The six previous studies that had examined the relationship of IGF-I and percent mammographic density in postmenopausal women did not find any association between the two (16, 17, 19-22). These studies differed from our study as they all excluded women who were current hormone therapy users. Also, five of the six studies included <250 postmenopausal women (16, 17, 19, 21, 22) and would not have power to detect a small difference of the magnitude we found. The cross-sectional study by Diorio et al. (20) included 791 postmenopausal women who were not currently using hormone therapy from two mammography screening clinics. The study by Diorio et al. (20) is similar to our study in the following aspects: the mammographic density was assessed by a computer-assisted method (30), the mean BMI was similar, and the IGF analyses were measured by ELISA. Their study differs from ours in the aspect that almost 31% of the women in their study reported a history of breast cancer in first-degree relatives, whereas the corresponding number is 9% in our study. Otherwise, we have no explanation for why our results are discrepant from the results by Diorio et al. (20).

In our study, the IGF-I/IGFBP-3 molar ratio did not show any stronger associations with mammographic density than those associations between IGF-I and mammographic density. Thus, our findings support the recent opinion that the IGF-I/IGFBP-3 ratio is a poor surrogate for bioavailable IGF-I (5).

We have previously shown, in this study population, that women using a continuous estrogen plus progestin hormone therapy for ≥5 years had a 7% higher percent mammographic density compared with never hormone therapy users (31). This difference was also of a small absolute value. However, because the women in our study overall have a very low percent mammographic density, the relative difference is not negligible. The mean percent mammographic density in our study is similar to that found among non–Hispanic White postmenopausal women in the placebo group of the Women's Health Initiative study (32).

We found no association between plasma IGF-I levels and mammographic density among current hormone therapy users overall or according to type of hormone therapy used. This may be related to our finding that current users of hormone therapy had lower mean plasma IGF-I concentrations compared with noncurrent users. Previous studies have indicated that current use of p.o. hormone therapy may decrease plasma IGF-I concentration (33-37) and that this influence seem to differ according to the type of hormone therapy used (34-37). The mechanisms for the influence by hormone therapy use on plasma IGF-I levels are unclear. Another possible explanation for the lack of association between IGF-I and mammographic density among current hormone therapy users may be that the effect of IGF-I is masked by the fact that current hormone therapy users have more dense breasts (31).

In contrast to the findings in older women, IGF-I has been almost consistently shown to be associated with breast cancer risk in young women (4-10). In the recent and largest prospective study on IGF and breast cancer risk comprising 1,081 European breast cancer cases and 2,098 matched controls within the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition cohort, an increase in breast cancer risk was observed among women >50 years of age with increasing levels of IGF-I. This finding was attenuated to borderline significance when the analyses were restricted to women who were postmenopausal at the time of blood donation (13). In a recent meta-analysis including the studies described above, it was concluded that there was still no apparent association between IGF-I and breast cancer among postmenopausal women (5).

If, nonetheless, further prospective studies among postmenopausal women confirm that IGF-I is associated with breast cancer risk, our study indicates that mammographic density could be evaluated as an intermediate marker in studies affecting the IGF-I–breast cancer pathway.

In conclusion, we found a positive but weak association between plasma IGF-I concentration and both percent and absolute mammographic densities among postmenopausal Norwegian women. These associations were only significant among women who were currently not using hormone therapy.

Acknowledgments

We thank the Departments of Clinical Research and Radiology, Center for Breast Imaging, University Hospital of North Norway; Professor Eiliv Lund and Norwegian Women and Cancer Study, University of Tromsø; Associate Professor Gertraud Maskarinec of Cancer Research Center of Hawaii; Cancer Registry of Norway; and the women who participated in the study.

Footnotes

  • Grant support: Norwegian Cancer Society, Aakre Foundation, Northern Norway Regional Health Authority, National Cancer Institute grant R03CA105948, Odd Fellow Medical-Scientific Research Fund, and Norwegian Women's Public Health Association.

  • 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 October 30, 2006.
    • Received September 18, 2006.
    • Revision received October 18, 2006.

References

  1. ↵
    Boyd NF, Rommens JM, Vogt K, et al. Mammographic breast density as an intermediate phenotype for breast cancer. Lancet Oncol 2005;6:798–808.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. ↵
    Byrne C, Schairer C, Wolfe J, et al. Mammographic features and breast cancer risk: effects with time, age, and menopause status. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995;87:1622–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    Boyd NF, Byng JW, Jong RA, et al. Quantitative classification of mammographic densities and breast cancer risk: results from the Canadian National Breast Screening Study. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995;87:670–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    Renehan AG, Egger M, Minder C, O'Dwyer ST, Shalet SM, Zwahlen M. IGF-I, IGF binding protein-3 and breast cancer risk: comparison of 3 meta-analyses. Int J Cancer 2005;115:1006–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    Renehan AG, Harvie M, Howell A. Insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-I, IGF binding protein-3, and breast cancer risk: eight years on. Endocr Relat Cancer 2006;13:273–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. Renehan AG, Zwahlen M, Minder C, O'Dwyer ST, Shalet SM, Egger M. Insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-I, IGF binding protein-3, and cancer risk: systematic review and meta-regression analysis. Lancet 2004;363:1346–53.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    Shi R, Yu H, McLarty J, Glass J. IGF-I and breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Int J Cancer 2004;111:418–23.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. Schernhammer ES, Holly JM, Pollak MN, Hankinson SE. Circulating levels of insulin-like growth factors, their binding proteins, and breast cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2005;14:699–704.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. Sugumar A, Liu YC, Xia Q, Koh YS, Matsuo K. Insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-I and IGF-binding protein 3 and the risk of premenopausal breast cancer: a meta-analysis of literature. Int J Cancer 2004;111:293–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    Hankinson SE, Schernhammer ES. Insulin-like growth factor and breast cancer risk: evidence from observational studies. Breast Dis 2003;17:27–40.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  11. ↵
    Peyrat JP, Bonneterre J, Hecquet B, et al. Plasma insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) concentrations in human breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 1993;29A:492–7.
  12. Agurs-Collins T, Adams-Campbell LL, Kim KS, Cullen KJ. Insulin-like growth factor-1 and breast cancer risk in postmenopausal African-American women. Cancer Detect Prev 2000;24:199–206.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  13. ↵
    Rinaldi S, Peeters PH, Berrino F, et al. IGF-I, IGFBP-3 and breast cancer risk in women: the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC). Endocr Relat Cancer 2006;13:593–605.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    Kahan Z, Gardi J, Nyari T, et al. Elevated levels of circulating insulin-like growth factor-I, IGF-binding globulin-3 and testosterone predict hormone-dependent breast cancer in postmenopausal women: a case-control study. Int J Oncol 2006;29:193–200.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  15. ↵
    Kaaks R, Lundin E, Rinaldi S, et al. Prospective study of IGF-I, IGF-binding proteins, and breast cancer risk, in northern and southern Sweden. Cancer Causes Control 2002;13:307–16.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    Byrne C, Colditz GA, Willett WC, Speizer FE, Pollak M, Hankinson SE. Plasma insulin-like growth factor (IGF) I, IGF-binding protein 3, and mammographic density. Cancer Res 2000;60:3744–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    Boyd NF, Stone J, Martin LJ, et al. The association of breast mitogens with mammographic densities. Br J Cancer 2002;87:876–82.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. Maskarinec G, Williams AE, Kaaks R. A cross-sectional investigation of breast density and insulin-like growth factor I. Int J Cancer 2003;107:991–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    Lai JH, Vesprini D, Zhang W, Yaffe MJ, Pollak M, Narod SA. A polymorphic locus in the promoter region of the IGFBP3 gene is related to mammographic breast density. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2004;13:573–82.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. ↵
    Diorio C, Pollak M, Byrne C, et al. Insulin-like growth factor-I, IGF-binding protein-3, and mammographic breast density. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2005;14:1065–73.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    dos Santos Silva I, Johnson N, De Stavola B, et al. The insulin-like growth factor system and mammographic features in premenopausal and postmenopausal women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15:449–55.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. ↵
    Aiello EJ, Tworoger SS, Yasui Y, et al. Associations among circulating sex hormones, insulin-like growth factor, lipids, and mammographic density in postmenopausal women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2005;14:1411–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. ↵
    Gram IT, Bremnes Y, Ursin G, Maskarinec G, Bjurstam N, Lund E. Percent density, Wolfe's and Tabár's mammographic patterns—agreement and association with breast cancer risk factors. Breast Cancer Res 2005;7:R862–70.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    Ursin G, Astrahan MA, Salane M, et al. The detection of changes in mammographic densities. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1998;7:43–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  25. ↵
    Hofvind S, Moller B, Thoresen S, Ursin G. Use of hormone therapy and risk of breast cancer detected at screening and between mammographic screens. Int J Cancer 2006;118:3112–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    Kaaks R. Insulin-like growth factor-I and mammographic breast density. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2005;14:3019.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  27. ↵
    Gram IT, Norat T, Rinaldi S, et al. Body mass index, waist circumference and waist-hip ratio and serum levels of IGF-I and IGFBP-3 in European women. Int J Obes (Lond) 2006;30:1623–31.
  28. Lukanova A, Lundin E, Zeleniuch-Jacquotte A, et al. Body mass index, circulating levels of sex-steroid hormones, IGF-I and IGF-binding protein-3: a cross-sectional study in healthy women. Eur J Endocrinol 2004;150:161–71.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  29. ↵
    DeLellis K, Ingles S, Kolonel L, et al. IGF1 genotype, mean plasma level and breast cancer risk in the Hawaii/Los Angeles multiethnic cohort. Br J Cancer 2003;88:277–82.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    Byng JW, Yaffe MJ, Lockwood GA, Little LE, Tritchler DL, Boyd NF. Automated analysis of mammographic densities and breast carcinoma risk. Cancer 1997;80:66–74.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    Bremnes Y, Ursin G, Bjurstam N, Lund E, Gram IT. Different types of Postmenopausal Hormone Therapy and Mammographic Density in Norwegian Women. Int J Cancer. In press 2007.
  32. ↵
    McTiernan A, Martin CF, Peck JD, et al. Estrogen-plus-progestin use and mammographic density in postmenopausal women: Women's Health Initiative randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97:1366–76.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. ↵
    Cano A, Castelo-Branco C, Tarin JJ. Effect of menopause and different combined estradiol-progestin regimens on basal and growth hormone-releasing hormone-stimulated serum growth hormone, insulin-like growth factor-1, insulin-like growth factor binding protein (IGFBP)-1, and IGFBP-3 levels. Fertil Steril 1999;71:261–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    Vestergaard P, Hermann AP, Orskov H, Mosekilde L. Effect of sex hormone replacement on the insulin-like growth factor system and bone mineral: a cross-sectional and longitudinal study in 595 perimenopausal women participating in the Danish Osteoporosis Prevention Study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1999;84:2286–90.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. Heald A, Selby PL, White A, Gibson JM. Progestins abrogate estrogen-induced changes in the insulin-like growth factor axis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;183:593–600.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. Morimoto LM, Newcomb PA, White E, Bigler J, Potter JD. Variation in plasma insulin-like growth factor-1 and insulin-like growth factor binding protein-3: personal and lifestyle factors (United States). Cancer Causes Control 2005;16:917–27.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    Holmes MD, Pollak MN, Hankinson SE. Lifestyle correlates of plasma insulin-like growth factor I and insulin-like growth factor binding protein 3 concentrations. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2002;11:862–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention: 16 (1)
January 2007
Volume 16, Issue 1
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)

Sign up for alerts

View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Insulin-like Growth Factor and Mammographic Density in Postmenopausal Norwegian Women
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Insulin-like Growth Factor and Mammographic Density in Postmenopausal Norwegian Women
Yngve Bremnes, Giske Ursin, Nils Bjurstam, Sabina Rinaldi, Rudolf Kaaks and Inger T. Gram
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev January 1 2007 (16) (1) 57-62; DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-06-0788

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Insulin-like Growth Factor and Mammographic Density in Postmenopausal Norwegian Women
Yngve Bremnes, Giske Ursin, Nils Bjurstam, Sabina Rinaldi, Rudolf Kaaks and Inger T. Gram
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev January 1 2007 (16) (1) 57-62; DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-06-0788
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Advertisement

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Urinary Melatonin in Relation to Breast Cancer Risk
  • Endometrial Cancer and Ovarian Cancer Cross-Cancer GWAS
  • Risk Factors of Subsequent CNS Tumor after Pediatric Cancer
Show more Research Articles
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Feedback
  • Privacy Policy
Facebook   Twitter   LinkedIn   YouTube   RSS

Articles

  • Online First
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Info for

  • Authors
  • Subscribers
  • Advertisers
  • Librarians

About Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Permissions
  • Submit a Manuscript
AACR logo

Copyright © 2021 by the American Association for Cancer Research.

Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
eISSN: 1538-7755
ISSN: 1055-9965

Advertisement