D Kritz-Silverstein1, D L Schneider, J Sandwell. 1. Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, 0631-C, La Jolla, 92093-0631, USA. dsilverstein@ucsd.edu
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The utility of screening mammography for older women with low bone mineral density (BMD) is controversial. This case-control study compares BMD at multiple sites in women with and without breast cancer to determine if BMD prescreening is useful in selecting women for continued screening mammograms. METHODS: Women diagnosed with breast cancer in the preceding 4 months and age-matched controls (+/-2 years) with a normal mammogram, all aged 65 years and older, were recruited on a 1:2 basis; 237 women participated: 79 women (cases) with breast cancer and 158 controls. BMD at the lumbar spine, hip, radius, and whole body was measured with dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA). RESULTS: Among women with breast cancer, 17.1% had stage 0, 41.5% stage I, 40.0% stage II, and 1.4% stage III. Women with breast cancer had larger waist circumferences (p=0.002) and waist-hip ratios (p=0.01), and they exercised less (p=0.002) than women of the control group. However, there were no differences between the cases and controls for age, obesity, and reproductive and menopausal history variables, or other covariates (p>0.10). There were no differences in lumbar spine, total hip, femoral neck, midshaft radius, or total body BMD (p>0.10), although the cases had higher BMD at the ultradistal radius than the controls (means: 0.527 vs. 0.516, respectively; p=0.014). There were no differences in breast cancer risk by tertile of BMD or osteoporosis status at the hip or spine. CONCLUSION: There is little difference in BMD between women with and without breast cancer. BMD is not useful as a prescreening predicator of mammography in older women and using it as such would result in cases of breast cancer being missed.
INTRODUCTION: The utility of screening mammography for older women with low bone mineral density (BMD) is controversial. This case-control study compares BMD at multiple sites in women with and without breast cancer to determine if BMD prescreening is useful in selecting women for continued screening mammograms. METHODS:Women diagnosed with breast cancer in the preceding 4 months and age-matched controls (+/-2 years) with a normal mammogram, all aged 65 years and older, were recruited on a 1:2 basis; 237 women participated: 79 women (cases) with breast cancer and 158 controls. BMD at the lumbar spine, hip, radius, and whole body was measured with dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA). RESULTS: Among women with breast cancer, 17.1% had stage 0, 41.5% stage I, 40.0% stage II, and 1.4% stage III. Women with breast cancer had larger waist circumferences (p=0.002) and waist-hip ratios (p=0.01), and they exercised less (p=0.002) than women of the control group. However, there were no differences between the cases and controls for age, obesity, and reproductive and menopausal history variables, or other covariates (p>0.10). There were no differences in lumbar spine, total hip, femoral neck, midshaft radius, or total body BMD (p>0.10), although the cases had higher BMD at the ultradistal radius than the controls (means: 0.527 vs. 0.516, respectively; p=0.014). There were no differences in breast cancer risk by tertile of BMD or osteoporosis status at the hip or spine. CONCLUSION: There is little difference in BMD between women with and without breast cancer. BMD is not useful as a prescreening predicator of mammography in older women and using it as such would result in cases of breast cancer being missed.
Authors: P A Newcomb; A Trentham-Dietz; K M Egan; L Titus-Ernstoff; J A Baron; B E Storer; W C Willett; M J Stampfer Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2001-06-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Marjolein van der Klift; Chris E D H de Laet; Jan Willem W Coebergh; Albert Hofman; Huibert A P Pols Journal: Bone Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 4.398
Authors: P G Toniolo; M Levitz; A Zeleniuch-Jacquotte; S Banerjee; K L Koenig; R E Shore; P Strax; B S Pasternack Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1995-02-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: J F Dorgan; C Longcope; H E Stephenson; R T Falk; R Miller; C Franz; L Kahle; W S Campbell; J A Tangrea; A Schatzkin Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 1997-04 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Merav Fraenkel; Victor Novack; Yuval Mizrakli; Michael Koretz; Ethel Siris; Larry Norton; Tali Shafat; David B Geffen Journal: NPJ Breast Cancer Date: 2022-02-17
Authors: Merav Fraenkel; Victor Novack; Yair Liel; Michael Koretz; Ethel Siris; Larry Norton; Tali Shafat; Shraga Shany; David B Geffen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-08-05 Impact factor: 3.240