BACKGROUND: Extensive mammographic density is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer and makes the detection of cancer by mammography difficult, but the influence of density on risk according to method of cancer detection is unknown. METHODS: We carried out three nested case-control studies in screened populations with 1112 matched case-control pairs. We examined the association of the measured percentage of density in the baseline mammogram with risk of breast cancer, according to method of cancer detection, time since the initiation of screening, and age. RESULTS: As compared with women with density in less than 10% of the mammogram, women with density in 75% or more had an increased risk of breast cancer (odds ratio, 4.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.0 to 7.4), whether detected by screening (odds ratio, 3.5; 95% CI, 2.0 to 6.2) or less than 12 months after a negative screening examination (odds ratio, 17.8; 95% CI, 4.8 to 65.9). Increased risk of breast cancer, whether detected by screening or other means, persisted for at least 8 years after study entry and was greater in younger than in older women. For women younger than the median age of 56 years, 26% of all breast cancers and 50% of cancers detected less than 12 months after a negative screening test were attributable to density in 50% or more of the mammogram. CONCLUSIONS: Extensive mammographic density is strongly associated with the risk of breast cancer detected by screening or between screening tests. A substantial fraction of breast cancers can be attributed to this risk factor. Copyright 2007 Massachusetts Medical Society.
BACKGROUND: Extensive mammographic density is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer and makes the detection of cancer by mammography difficult, but the influence of density on risk according to method of cancer detection is unknown. METHODS: We carried out three nested case-control studies in screened populations with 1112 matched case-control pairs. We examined the association of the measured percentage of density in the baseline mammogram with risk of breast cancer, according to method of cancer detection, time since the initiation of screening, and age. RESULTS: As compared with women with density in less than 10% of the mammogram, women with density in 75% or more had an increased risk of breast cancer (odds ratio, 4.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.0 to 7.4), whether detected by screening (odds ratio, 3.5; 95% CI, 2.0 to 6.2) or less than 12 months after a negative screening examination (odds ratio, 17.8; 95% CI, 4.8 to 65.9). Increased risk of breast cancer, whether detected by screening or other means, persisted for at least 8 years after study entry and was greater in younger than in older women. For women younger than the median age of 56 years, 26% of all breast cancers and 50% of cancers detected less than 12 months after a negative screening test were attributable to density in 50% or more of the mammogram. CONCLUSIONS: Extensive mammographic density is strongly associated with the risk of breast cancer detected by screening or between screening tests. A substantial fraction of breast cancers can be attributed to this risk factor. Copyright 2007 Massachusetts Medical Society.
Authors: Stephanie M W Y van de Ven; Niculae Mincu; Jean Brunette; Guobin Ma; Mario Khayat; Debra M Ikeda; Sanjiv S Gambhir Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Songfeng Li; Jun Wei; Heang-Ping Chan; Mark A Helvie; Marilyn A Roubidoux; Yao Lu; Chuan Zhou; Lubomir M Hadjiiski; Ravi K Samala Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2018-01-09 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Ke Nie; Jeon-Hor Chen; Siwa Chan; Man-Kwun I Chau; Hon J Yu; Shadfar Bahri; Tiffany Tseng; Orhan Nalcioglu; Min-Ying Su Journal: Med Phys Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Michael A Pinkert; Lonie R Salkowski; Patricia J Keely; Timothy J Hall; Walter F Block; Kevin W Eliceiri Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2018-01-22
Authors: C C Hack; L Häberle; K Geisler; R Schulz-Wendtland; A Hartmann; P A Fasching; M Uder; D L Wachter; S M Jud; C R Loehberg; M P Lux; C Rauh; M W Beckmann; K Heusinger Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 2.915
Authors: P A Fasching; A B Ekici; D L Wachter; A Hein; C M Bayer; L Häberle; C R Loehberg; M Schneider; S M Jud; K Heusinger; M Rübner; C Rauh; M R Bani; M P Lux; R Schulz-Wendtland; A Hartmann; M W Beckmann Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 2.915
Authors: Sunitha V Bachawal; Kristin C Jensen; Amelie M Lutz; Sanjiv S Gambhir; Francois Tranquart; Lu Tian; Jürgen K Willmann Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2013-01-17 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Jeroen J van den Broek; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Hui Huang; Mehmet Ali Ergun; Elizabeth S Burnside; Cong Xu; Yisheng Li; Oguzhan Alagoz; Sandra J Lee; Natasha K Stout; Juhee Song; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Sylvia K Plevritis; Sue M Moss; Harry J de Koning Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 2.583