Literature DB >> 20130984

Mammographic density does not differ between unaffected BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and women at low-to-average risk of breast cancer.

Gretchen L Gierach1, Jennifer T Loud, Catherine K Chow, Sheila A Prindiville, Jennifer Eng-Wong, Peter W Soballe, Claudia Giambartolomei, Phuong L Mai, Claudia E Galbo, Kathryn Nichols, Kathleen A Calzone, Celine Vachon, Mitchell H Gail, Mark H Greene.   

Abstract

Elevated mammographic density (MD) is one of the strongest risk factors for sporadic breast cancer. Epidemiologic evidence suggests that MD is, in part, genetically determined; however, the relationship between MD and BRCA1/2 mutation status is equivocal. We compared MD in unaffected BRCA1/2 mutation carriers enrolled in the U.S. National Cancer Institute's Clinical Genetics Branch's Breast Imaging Study (n = 143) with women at low-to-average breast cancer risk enrolled in the same study (n = 29) or the NCI/National Naval Medical Center's Susceptibility to Breast Cancer Study (n = 90). The latter were BRCA mutation-negative members of mutation-positive families or women with no prior breast cancer, a Pedigree Assessment Tool score <8 (i.e., low risk of a hereditary breast cancer syndrome) and a Gail score <1.67. A single experienced mammographer measured MD using a computer-assisted thresholding method. We collected standard breast cancer risk factor information in both studies. Unadjusted mean percent MD was higher in women with BRCA1/2 mutations compared with women at low-to-average breast cancer risk (37.3% vs. 33.4%; P = 0.04), but these differences disappeared after adjusting for age and body mass index (34.9% vs. 36.3%; P = 0.43). We explored age at menarche, nulliparity, age at first birth, menopausal status, number of breast biopsies, and exposure to exogenous hormonal agents as potential confounders of the MD and BRCA1/2 association. Taking these factors into account did not significantly alter the results of the age/body mass index-adjusted analysis. Our results do not provide support for an independent effect of BRCA1/2 mutation status on mammographic density.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20130984      PMCID: PMC3125980          DOI: 10.1007/s10549-010-0749-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat        ISSN: 0167-6806            Impact factor:   4.872


  48 in total

1.  A prospective study of breast cancer risk using routine mammographic breast density measurements.

Authors:  Pamela M Vacek; Berta M Geller
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 4.254

2.  Computerized analysis of mammographic parenchymal patterns for assessing breast cancer risk: effect of ROI size and location.

Authors:  Hui Li; Maryellen L Giger; Zhimin Huo; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Li Lan; Barbara L Weber; Ioana Bonta
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Mammographic parenchymal pattern and the risk of breast cancer.

Authors:  E Wilkinson; C Clopton; J Gordonson; R Green; A Hill; M C Pike
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1977-11       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  Mammographic breast density and family history of breast cancer.

Authors:  Elad Ziv; John Shepherd; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2003-04-02       Impact factor: 13.506

5.  Mammographic parenchymal patterns as a risk indicator for prevalent and incident cancer.

Authors:  P M Krook; T Carlile; W Bush; M H Hall
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1978-03       Impact factor: 6.860

6.  Breast imaging findings in women with BRCA1- and BRCA2-associated breast carcinoma.

Authors:  L J Hamilton; A J Evans; A R M Wilson; N Scott; E J Cornford; S E Pinder; H N Khan; R D Macmillan
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 2.350

7.  Heritable aspects of dysplastic breast glandular tissue (DY).

Authors:  G Haars; P A H van Noord; C H van Gils; P H M Peeters; D E Grobbee
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 4.872

8.  Mammographic parenchymal patterns and risk factors for breast cancer.

Authors:  V L Ernster; S T Sacks; C A Peterson; R J Schweitzer
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1980-03       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  A BRCA1/2 mutation, high breast density and prominent pushing margins of a tumor independently contribute to a frequent false-negative mammography.

Authors:  Madeleine Tilanus-Linthorst; Leon Verhoog; Inge-Marie Obdeijn; Karina Bartels; Marian Menke-Pluymers; Alexander Eggermont; Jan Klijn; Hanne Meijers-Heijboer; Theo van der Kwast; Cecile Brekelmans
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2002-11-01       Impact factor: 7.396

10.  Tolerability of breast ductal lavage in women from families at high genetic risk of breast cancer.

Authors:  Jennifer T Loud; Ellen Burke Beckjord; Kathryn Nichols; June Peters; Ruthann Giusti; Mark H Greene
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2009-07-14       Impact factor: 2.809

View more
  19 in total

1.  Comparative analysis of image-based phenotypes of mammographic density and parenchymal patterns in distinguishing between BRCA1/2 cases, unilateral cancer cases, and controls.

Authors:  Hui Li; Maryellen L Giger; Li Lan; Jyothi Janardanan; Charlene A Sennett
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2014-11-13

2.  Breast tissue density change after oophorectomy in BRCA mutation carrier patients using visual and volumetric analysis.

Authors:  Augustin Lecler; Ariane Dunant; Suzette Delaloge; Delphine Wehrer; Tania Moussa; Olivier Caron; Corinne Balleyguier
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-01-05       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  The TP53 mutation rate differs in breast cancers that arise in women with high or low mammographic density.

Authors:  Kylie L Gorringe; Ian G Campbell; Dane Cheasley; Lisa Devereux; Siobhan Hughes; Carolyn Nickson; Pietro Procopio; Grant Lee; Na Li; Vicki Pridmore; Kenneth Elder; G Bruce Mann; Tanjina Kader; Simone M Rowley; Stephen B Fox; David Byrne; Hugo Saunders; Kenji M Fujihara; Belle Lim
Journal:  NPJ Breast Cancer       Date:  2020-08-07

4.  Circulating estrogens and estrogens within the breast among postmenopausal BRCA1/2 mutation carriers.

Authors:  Jennifer T Loud; Gretchen L Gierach; Timothy D Veenstra; Roni T Falk; Kathryn Nichols; Allison Guttmann; Xia Xu; Mark H Greene; Mitchell H Gail
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2014-01-18       Impact factor: 4.872

5.  Protective effects of prepubertal genistein exposure on mammary tumorigenesis are dependent on BRCA1 expression.

Authors:  Sonia de Assis; Anni Warri; Carlos Benitez; William Helferich; Leena Hilakivi-Clarke
Journal:  Cancer Prev Res (Phila)       Date:  2011-06-16

6.  Mammographic density: intersection of advocacy, science, and clinical practice.

Authors:  Katherine Tossas-Milligan; Sundus Shalabi; Veronica Jones; Patricia J Keely; Matthew W Conklin; Kevin W Elicerie; Robert Winn; Christopher Sistrunk; Joseph Geradts; Gustavo Miranda-Carboni; Eric C Dietze; Lisa D Yee; Victoria L Seewaldt
Journal:  Curr Breast Cancer Rep       Date:  2019-07-24

7.  Does mammographic density mediate risk factor associations with breast cancer? An analysis by tumor characteristics.

Authors:  Megan S Rice; Rulla M Tamimi; Kimberly A Bertrand; Christopher G Scott; Matthew R Jensen; Aaron D Norman; Daniel W Visscher; Yunn-Yi Chen; Kathleen R Brandt; Fergus J Couch; John A Shepherd; Bo Fan; Fang-Fang Wu; Lin Ma; Laura C Collins; Steven R Cummings; Karla Kerlikowske; Celine M Vachon
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2018-03-03       Impact factor: 4.872

8.  Common breast cancer susceptibility variants in LSP1 and RAD51L1 are associated with mammographic density measures that predict breast cancer risk.

Authors:  Celine M Vachon; Christopher G Scott; Peter A Fasching; Per Hall; Rulla M Tamimi; Jingmei Li; Jennifer Stone; Carmel Apicella; Fabrice Odefrey; Gretchen L Gierach; Sebastian M Jud; Katharina Heusinger; Matthias W Beckmann; Marina Pollan; Pablo Fernández-Navarro; Anna Gonzalez-Neira; Javier Benitez; Carla H van Gils; Mariëtte Lokate; N Charlotte Onland-Moret; Petra H M Peeters; Judith Brown; Jean Leyland; Jajini S Varghese; Douglas F Easton; Deborah J Thompson; Robert N Luben; Ruth M L Warren; Nicholas J Wareham; Ruth J F Loos; Kay-Tee Khaw; Giske Ursin; Eunjung Lee; Simon A Gayther; Susan J Ramus; Rosalind A Eeles; Martin O Leach; Gek Kwan-Lim; Fergus J Couch; Graham G Giles; Laura Baglietto; Kavitha Krishnan; Melissa C Southey; Loic Le Marchand; Laurence N Kolonel; Christy Woolcott; Gertraud Maskarinec; Christopher A Haiman; Kate Walker; Nichola Johnson; Valeria A McCormack; Margarethe Biong; Grethe I G Alnaes; Inger Torhild Gram; Vessela N Kristensen; Anne-Lise Børresen-Dale; Sara Lindström; Susan E Hankinson; David J Hunter; Irene L Andrulis; Julia A Knight; Norman F Boyd; Jonine D Figuero; Jolanta Lissowska; Ewa Wesolowska; Beata Peplonska; Agnieszka Bukowska; Edyta Reszka; JianJun Liu; Louise Eriksson; Kamila Czene; Tina Audley; Anna H Wu; V Shane Pankratz; John L Hopper; Isabel dos-Santos-Silva
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2012-03-27       Impact factor: 4.254

9.  Emerging Concepts in Breast Cancer Risk Prediction.

Authors:  Gretchen L Gierach; Xiaohong R Yang; Jonine D Figueroa; Mark E Sherman
Journal:  Curr Obstet Gynecol Rep       Date:  2013-03

10.  Mammographic density and breast cancer risk by family history in women of white and Asian ancestry.

Authors:  Gertraud Maskarinec; Kaylae L Nakamura; Christy G Woolcott; Shannon M Conroy; Celia Byrne; Chisato Nagata; Giske Ursin; Celine M Vachon
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2015-03-12       Impact factor: 2.506

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.