PURPOSE: Mammographic density and lobular involution are both significant risk factors for breast cancer, but whether these reflect the same biology is unknown. We examined the involution and density association in a large benign breast disease (BBD) cohort. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women in the Mayo Clinic BBD cohort who had a mammogram within 6 months of BBD diagnosis were eligible. The proportion of normal lobules that were involuted was categorized by an expert pathologist as no (0%), partial (1% to 74%), or complete involution (>or= 75%). Mammographic density was estimated as the four-category parenchymal pattern. Statistical analyses adjusted for potential confounders and evaluated modification by parity and age. We corroborated findings in a sample of women with BBD from the Mayo Mammography Health Study (MMHS) with quantitative percent density (PD) and absolute dense and nondense area estimates. RESULTS: Women in the Mayo BBD cohort (n = 2,667) with no (odds ratio, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.2 to 2.3) or partial (odds ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0 to 1.6) involution had greater odds of high density (DY pattern) than those with complete involution (P trend < .01). There was no evidence for effect modification by age or parity. Among 317 women with BBD in the MMHS study, there was an inverse association between involution and PD (mean PD, 22.4%, 21.6%, 17.2%, for no, partial, and complete, respectively; P trend = .04) and a strong positive association of involution with nondense area (P trend < .01). No association was seen between involution and dense area (P trend = .56). CONCLUSION: We present evidence of an inverse association between involution and mammographic density.
PURPOSE: Mammographic density and lobular involution are both significant risk factors for breast cancer, but whether these reflect the same biology is unknown. We examined the involution and density association in a large benign breast disease (BBD) cohort. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women in the Mayo Clinic BBD cohort who had a mammogram within 6 months of BBD diagnosis were eligible. The proportion of normal lobules that were involuted was categorized by an expert pathologist as no (0%), partial (1% to 74%), or complete involution (>or= 75%). Mammographic density was estimated as the four-category parenchymal pattern. Statistical analyses adjusted for potential confounders and evaluated modification by parity and age. We corroborated findings in a sample of women with BBD from the Mayo Mammography Health Study (MMHS) with quantitative percent density (PD) and absolute dense and nondense area estimates. RESULTS:Women in the Mayo BBD cohort (n = 2,667) with no (odds ratio, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.2 to 2.3) or partial (odds ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0 to 1.6) involution had greater odds of high density (DY pattern) than those with complete involution (P trend < .01). There was no evidence for effect modification by age or parity. Among 317 women with BBD in the MMHS study, there was an inverse association between involution and PD (mean PD, 22.4%, 21.6%, 17.2%, for no, partial, and complete, respectively; P trend = .04) and a strong positive association of involution with nondense area (P trend < .01). No association was seen between involution and dense area (P trend = .56). CONCLUSION: We present evidence of an inverse association between involution and mammographic density.
Authors: Y P Guo; L J Martin; W Hanna; D Banerjee; N Miller; E Fishell; R Khokha; N F Boyd Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: N F Boyd; C Wolfson; M Moskowitz; T Carlile; C Petitclerc; H A Ferri; E Fishell; A Gregoire; M Kiernan; J D Longley Journal: J Chronic Dis Date: 1986
Authors: J Brisson; A S Morrison; D B Kopans; N L Sadowsky; L Kalisher; J A Twaddle; J E Meyer; C I Henschke; P Cole Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 1984-03 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: T Carlile; K J Kopecky; D J Thompson; J R Whitehead; F I Gilbert; A J Present; B A Threatt; P Krook; E Hadaway Journal: JAMA Date: 1985 Aug 23-30 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Robert A Vierkant; Lynn C Hartmann; V Shane Pankratz; Stephanie S Anderson; Derek Radisky; Marlene H Frost; Celine M Vachon; Karthik Ghosh; Tammy J Distad; Amy C Degnim; Carol A Reynolds Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2008-07-01 Impact factor: 4.872
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: Hyuna Sung; Changyuan Guo; Erni Li; Jing Li; Ruth M Pfeiffer; Jennifer L Guida; Renata Cora; Nan Hu; Joseph Deng; Jonine D Figueroa; Mark E Sherman; Gretchen L Gierach; Ning Lu; Xiaohong R Yang Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2019-01-07 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Wenlian Zhu; Susan Harvey; Katarzyna J Macura; David M Euhus; Dmitri Artemov Journal: Clin Breast Cancer Date: 2016-07-28 Impact factor: 3.225
Authors: Karthik Ghosh; Celine M Vachon; V Shane Pankratz; Robert A Vierkant; Stephanie S Anderson; Kathleen R Brandt; Daniel W Visscher; Carol Reynolds; Marlene H Frost; Lynn C Hartmann Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2010-10-29 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Hannah Oh; Zeina G Khodr; Mark E Sherman; Maya Palakal; Ruth M Pfeiffer; Laura Linville; Berta M Geller; Pamela M Vacek; Donald L Weaver; Rachael E Chicoine; Roni T Falk; Hisani N Horne; Daphne Papathomas; Deesha A Patel; Jackie Xiang; Xia Xu; Timothy Veenstra; Stephen M Hewitt; John A Shepherd; Louise A Brinton; Jonine D Figueroa; Gretchen L Gierach Journal: Horm Cancer Date: 2016-05-02 Impact factor: 3.869
Authors: Hannah Oh; Clara Bodelon; Maya Palakal; Nilanjan Chatterjee; Mark E Sherman; Laura Linville; Berta M Geller; Pamela M Vacek; Donald L Weaver; Rachael E Chicoine; Daphne Papathomas; Deesha A Patel; Jackie Xiang; Susan E Clare; Daniel W Visscher; Carolyn Mies; Stephen M Hewitt; Louise A Brinton; Anna Maria V Storniolo; Chunyan He; Montserrat Garcia-Closas; Stephen J Chanock; Gretchen L Gierach; Jonine D Figueroa Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2016-06-24 Impact factor: 4.872