BACKGROUND: Information on breast cancer risk can be obtained both from the histological appearance of the breast epithelium in biopsy specimens and from the pattern of parenchymal densities in the breast revealed by mammography. It is not understood, however, how parenchymal densities influence breast cancer risk or whether these densities are associated with histological risk factors. PURPOSE: We have estimated, in a large cohort of women, the relative risk of detecting carcinoma in situ, atypical hyperplasia, hyperplasia without atypia, or nonproliferative disease in biopsy specimens from women with different extents of mammographic density. We also examined the association between these histological classifications and radiological features present specifically at the biopsy site. METHODS: The source of study material was a population of women aged 40-49 years who were enrolled in the Canadian National Breast Screening Study (NBSS). Mammograms from women who had undergone a biopsy (n = 441) and from a comparison group of women (n = 501) randomly selected from the mammography arm of the NBSS were classified according to the extent of mammographic density. The corresponding histological slides were independently classified by a review pathologist. RESULTS: Compared with women showing no mammographic densities, women with the most extensive densities (i.e., occupying greater than 75% of the breast volume) had a 9.7 times greater risk of developing carcinoma in situ or atypical hyperplasia (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.75-53.97), a 12.2 times greater risk of developing hyperplasia without atypia (95% CI = 2.97-50.14), and a 3.1 times greater risk of developing non-proliferative disease (95% CI = 1.20-8.11). The gradients in risk were not monotonic across the five classifications of mammographic density. The association could not be explained by the presence of mammographic densities at the biopsy site, but calcification at the biopsy site was strongly associated with high-risk histological changes (relative risk = 24; 95% CI = 5.0-156.0). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the radiological patterns referred to as mammographic dysplasia may influence breast cancer risk by virtue of their association with high-risk histological changes in the breast epithelium. IMPLICATIONS: Identification of the factors responsible for high-risk histological changes may offer new insights into the etiology of breast cancer and potentially lead to the development of methods for its prevention.
BACKGROUND: Information on breast cancer risk can be obtained both from the histological appearance of the breast epithelium in biopsy specimens and from the pattern of parenchymal densities in the breast revealed by mammography. It is not understood, however, how parenchymal densities influence breast cancer risk or whether these densities are associated with histological risk factors. PURPOSE: We have estimated, in a large cohort of women, the relative risk of detecting carcinoma in situ, atypical hyperplasia, hyperplasia without atypia, or nonproliferative disease in biopsy specimens from women with different extents of mammographic density. We also examined the association between these histological classifications and radiological features present specifically at the biopsy site. METHODS: The source of study material was a population of women aged 40-49 years who were enrolled in the Canadian National Breast Screening Study (NBSS). Mammograms from women who had undergone a biopsy (n = 441) and from a comparison group of women (n = 501) randomly selected from the mammography arm of the NBSS were classified according to the extent of mammographic density. The corresponding histological slides were independently classified by a review pathologist. RESULTS: Compared with women showing no mammographic densities, women with the most extensive densities (i.e., occupying greater than 75% of the breast volume) had a 9.7 times greater risk of developing carcinoma in situ or atypical hyperplasia (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.75-53.97), a 12.2 times greater risk of developing hyperplasia without atypia (95% CI = 2.97-50.14), and a 3.1 times greater risk of developing non-proliferative disease (95% CI = 1.20-8.11). The gradients in risk were not monotonic across the five classifications of mammographic density. The association could not be explained by the presence of mammographic densities at the biopsy site, but calcification at the biopsy site was strongly associated with high-risk histological changes (relative risk = 24; 95% CI = 5.0-156.0). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the radiological patterns referred to as mammographic dysplasia may influence breast cancer risk by virtue of their association with high-risk histological changes in the breast epithelium. IMPLICATIONS: Identification of the factors responsible for high-risk histological changes may offer new insights into the etiology of breast cancer and potentially lead to the development of methods for its prevention.
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: Toni J Lewis; William D Dupont; Kathleen M Egan; Corey D Jones; Anthony C Disher; William R Riddle; Alecia Malin Fair Journal: J Health Care Poor Underserved Date: 2010-02
Authors: Jennifer Eng-Wong; Jennifer Orzano-Birgani; Catherine K Chow; David Venzon; Jianhua Yao; Claudia E Galbo; Jo Anne Zujewski; Sheila Prindiville Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2008-06-26 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Michael S Shawky; Cecilia W Huo; Kara Britt; Erik W Thompson; Michael A Henderson; Andrew Redfern Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2019-06-08 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Courtney M Williams; Adam J Engler; R Daniel Slone; Leontine L Galante; Jean E Schwarzbauer Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2008-05-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Karin B Michels; Barbara A Cohn; Mandy Goldberg; Julie D Flom; Marcelle Dougan; Mary Beth Terry Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Martijn Verheus; Gertraud Maskarinec; Eva Erber; Jana S Steude; Jeffrey Killeen; Brenda Y Hernandez; J Mark Cline Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2009-06-13 Impact factor: 4.430