Rulla M Tamimi1, Susan E Hankinson, Graham A Colditz, Celia Byrne. 1. Channing Laboratory, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, 181 Longwood Avenue, Boston, MA 02115, USA. rulla.tamimi@channing.harvard.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mammographic density is one of the strongest predictors of breast cancer risk. The mechanism by which breast density increases breast cancer risk is unclear although it has been hypothesized that breast density reflects cumulative exposure to estrogens. METHODS: To evaluate this hypothesis, we conducted a cross-sectional study among 520 postmenopausal women in the Nurses' Health Study that examined the relation between circulating sex hormones and mammographic density. Women were postmenopausal and not taking exogenous hormones at the time of blood collection and mammogram. Percent breast density was measured from digitized mammograms using a computer-assisted method. Circulating estrone, estradiol, androstenedione, testosterone, DHEA, DHEA sulfate, sex hormone-binding globulin, progesterone, and prolactin were measured in plasma. RESULTS: In contrast to the prior hypothesis, circulating estrogens were inversely related to percent mammographic density. The mean percent mammographic density was 25.6% among women in the lowest quartile of circulating estradiol compared with 14.4% among women in the highest quartile [Spearman correlation (r) = -0.22, P < 0.0001]. Circulating estrogens alone explained 1% to 5% of the variation of mammographic density. Body mass index was positively associated with circulating estradiol levels (r = 0.45, P < 0.0001) and inversely related to percent mammographic density (r = -0.51, P < 0.0001). After adjustment for body mass index, there was no association between estradiol and breast density (r = 0.01, P = 0.81). Likewise, there was no relation between the other sex hormones measured or prolactin and mammographic density after adjustment for body mass index. CONCLUSION: These findings indicate that in postmenopausal women, mammographic density is independent of circulating sex hormone levels.
BACKGROUND: Mammographic density is one of the strongest predictors of breast cancer risk. The mechanism by which breast density increases breast cancer risk is unclear although it has been hypothesized that breast density reflects cumulative exposure to estrogens. METHODS: To evaluate this hypothesis, we conducted a cross-sectional study among 520 postmenopausal women in the Nurses' Health Study that examined the relation between circulating sex hormones and mammographic density. Women were postmenopausal and not taking exogenous hormones at the time of blood collection and mammogram. Percent breast density was measured from digitized mammograms using a computer-assisted method. Circulating estrone, estradiol, androstenedione, testosterone, DHEA, DHEA sulfate, sex hormone-binding globulin, progesterone, and prolactin were measured in plasma. RESULTS: In contrast to the prior hypothesis, circulating estrogens were inversely related to percent mammographic density. The mean percent mammographic density was 25.6% among women in the lowest quartile of circulating estradiol compared with 14.4% among women in the highest quartile [Spearman correlation (r) = -0.22, P < 0.0001]. Circulating estrogens alone explained 1% to 5% of the variation of mammographic density. Body mass index was positively associated with circulating estradiol levels (r = 0.45, P < 0.0001) and inversely related to percent mammographic density (r = -0.51, P < 0.0001). After adjustment for body mass index, there was no association between estradiol and breast density (r = 0.01, P = 0.81). Likewise, there was no relation between the other sex hormones measured or prolactin and mammographic density after adjustment for body mass index. CONCLUSION: These findings indicate that in postmenopausal women, mammographic density is independent of circulating sex hormone levels.
Authors: Norman F Boyd; Lisa J Martin; Michael Bronskill; Martin J Yaffe; Neb Duric; Salomon Minkin Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2010-07-08 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Karen S Anderson; Sahar Sibani; Garrick Wallstrom; Ji Qiu; Eliseo A Mendoza; Jacob Raphael; Eugenie Hainsworth; Wagner R Montor; Jessica Wong; Jin G Park; Naa Lokko; Tanya Logvinenko; Niroshan Ramachandran; Andrew K Godwin; Jeffrey Marks; Paul Engstrom; Joshua Labaer Journal: J Proteome Res Date: 2010-11-23 Impact factor: 4.466
Authors: William C Strohsnitter; Kimberly A Bertrand; Rebecca Troisi; Christopher G Scott; Andrea L Cheville; Robert N Hoover; Julie R Palmer; Celine M Vachon Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2018-05-02 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Mary Beth Terry; Diana S M Buist; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Tamarra M James-Todd; Yuyan Liao Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: J M Faupel-Badger; M E Sherman; M Garcia-Closas; M M Gaudet; R T Falk; A Andaya; R M Pfeiffer; X R Yang; J Lissowska; L A Brinton; B Peplonska; B K Vonderhaar; J D Figueroa Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2010-08-24 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Valerie A McCormack; Mitch Dowsett; Elizabeth Folkerd; Nichola Johnson; Claire Palles; Ben Coupland; Jeff M Holly; Sarah J Vinnicombe; Nicholas M Perry; Isabel dos Santos Silva Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2009-06-22 Impact factor: 6.466