BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether mammographic breast density, a strong risk factor for breast cancer, predicts subtypes of breast cancer defined by estrogen receptor (ER) and/or progesterone receptor (PR) expression. METHODS: In a nested case-control study, we compared the breast density of 667 controls and 607 breast cancer cases among women of Caucasian, Japanese, and Native Hawaiian ancestry in the Hawaii component of the Multiethnic Cohort Study. A reader blinded to disease status performed computer assisted density assessment on prediagnostic mammograms. Receptor status was obtained from the statewide Hawaii Tumor Registry. Tumors were classified into ER+PR+ (n=341), ER-PR- (n=50), ER+PR-/ER-PR+ (n=64), and unstaged/unknown (n=152). Mean percent density values were computed for women with more than one mammogram. Polytomous logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) while adjusting for confounders. RESULTS: Mean percent density was significantly greater for ER+PR+ but not for ER-PR- tumors compared to controls after adjusting for age: 37.3%, 28.9% versus 29.4%, respectively. The overall OR per 10% increase in percent density were similar for ER+PR+ and ER+PR-/ER-PR+ tumors: 1.26 (95% CI 1.17-1.36) and 1.23 (95% CI 1.07-1.42), respectively. However, percent density was not found to be a predictor for ER-PR- tumors (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.84-1.18). The results did not differ by ethnicity, nor by menopausal status, parity, or HRT use. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that within a multiethnic population, women with higher breast density have an increased risk for ER+PR+ but not ER-PR- tumors.
BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether mammographic breast density, a strong risk factor for breast cancer, predicts subtypes of breast cancer defined by estrogen receptor (ER) and/or progesterone receptor (PR) expression. METHODS: In a nested case-control study, we compared the breast density of 667 controls and 607 breast cancer cases among women of Caucasian, Japanese, and Native Hawaiian ancestry in the Hawaii component of the Multiethnic Cohort Study. A reader blinded to disease status performed computer assisted density assessment on prediagnostic mammograms. Receptor status was obtained from the statewide Hawaii Tumor Registry. Tumors were classified into ER+PR+ (n=341), ER-PR- (n=50), ER+PR-/ER-PR+ (n=64), and unstaged/unknown (n=152). Mean percent density values were computed for women with more than one mammogram. Polytomous logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) while adjusting for confounders. RESULTS: Mean percent density was significantly greater for ER+PR+ but not for ER-PR- tumors compared to controls after adjusting for age: 37.3%, 28.9% versus 29.4%, respectively. The overall OR per 10% increase in percent density were similar for ER+PR+ and ER+PR-/ER-PR+ tumors: 1.26 (95% CI 1.17-1.36) and 1.23 (95% CI 1.07-1.42), respectively. However, percent density was not found to be a predictor for ER-PR- tumors (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.84-1.18). The results did not differ by ethnicity, nor by menopausal status, parity, or HRT use. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that within a multiethnic population, women with higher breast density have an increased risk for ER+PR+ but not ER-PR- tumors.
Authors: Gertraud Maskarinec; Ian Pagano; Galina Lurie; Lynne R Wilkens; Laurence N Kolonel Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2005-09-08 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Karthik Ghosh; Kathleen R Brandt; Thomas A Sellers; Carol Reynolds; Christopher G Scott; Shaun D Maloney; Michael J Carston; V Shane Pankratz; Celine M Vachon Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Karla Kerlikowske; Charlotte C Gard; Jeffrey A Tice; Elad Ziv; Steven R Cummings; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2016-12-31 Impact factor: 13.506
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: Amanda I Phipps; Diana S M Buist; Kathleen E Malone; William E Barlow; Peggy L Porter; Karla Kerlikowske; Ellen S O'Meara; Christopher I Li Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2012-02-25 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: Kimberly A Bertrand; Christopher G Scott; Rulla M Tamimi; Matthew R Jensen; V Shane Pankratz; Aaron D Norman; Daniel W Visscher; Fergus J Couch; John Shepherd; Yunn-Yi Chen; Bo Fan; Fang-Fang Wu; Lin Ma; Andrew H Beck; Steven R Cummings; Karla Kerlikowske; Celine M Vachon Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2015-02-25 Impact factor: 4.254
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: A Caldarella; D Puliti; E Crocetti; S Bianchi; V Vezzosi; P Apicella; M Biancalani; A Giannini; C Urso; F Zolfanelli; E Paci Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2012-09-09 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Marina Pollán; Nieves Ascunce; María Ederra; Alberto Murillo; Nieves Erdozáin; Jose Alés-Martínez; Roberto Pastor-Barriuso Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2013-01-29 Impact factor: 6.466