BACKGROUND: Percent mammographic density (PMD) is a strong risk factor for breast cancer that changes in response to changes in hormone exposure. We have examined the magnitude of the association of hormone exposure with PMD according to subsequent breast cancer risk. METHODS: In three case-control studies, with 1,164 patient cases and 1,155 controls nested in cohorts of women screened with mammography, we examined the association of PMD measured in the baseline mammogram with risk of breast cancer in the following 1 to 8 years (mean, 3 years), according to use of oral contraceptives (OCs) in premenopausal women, menopause, and hormone therapy (HT) in postmenopausal women. All statistical comparisons are adjusted for age and other risk factors. RESULTS: In premenopausal women who later developed breast cancer (patient cases), PMD was 5.3% greater in past users of OCs than in nonusers (P = .06). In controls, OC users had 2% less density than nonusers (P = .44; test for interaction P = .06). The difference in PMD between premenopausal and postmenopausal women for patient cases was 8.5% (P < .001) and for controls, 3.9% (P = .01; test for interaction P = .03). In postmenopausal women, PMD was 6% greater in patients who used HT than in never users (P < .001). Controls who used HT had 1.6% greater PMD (P = .26) than never users (test for interaction P = .001). Differences in PMD resulted mainly from differences in the dense area of the mammogram. CONCLUSION: Differences in PMD associated with differences in hormone exposure were greater in women who later developed breast cancer than in controls in each of the hormone exposures examined.
BACKGROUND: Percent mammographic density (PMD) is a strong risk factor for breast cancer that changes in response to changes in hormone exposure. We have examined the magnitude of the association of hormone exposure with PMD according to subsequent breast cancer risk. METHODS: In three case-control studies, with 1,164 patient cases and 1,155 controls nested in cohorts of women screened with mammography, we examined the association of PMD measured in the baseline mammogram with risk of breast cancer in the following 1 to 8 years (mean, 3 years), according to use of oral contraceptives (OCs) in premenopausal women, menopause, and hormone therapy (HT) in postmenopausal women. All statistical comparisons are adjusted for age and other risk factors. RESULTS: In premenopausal women who later developed breast cancer (patient cases), PMD was 5.3% greater in past users of OCs than in nonusers (P = .06). In controls, OC users had 2% less density than nonusers (P = .44; test for interaction P = .06). The difference in PMD between premenopausal and postmenopausal women for patient cases was 8.5% (P < .001) and for controls, 3.9% (P = .01; test for interaction P = .03). In postmenopausal women, PMD was 6% greater in patients who used HT than in never users (P < .001). Controls who used HT had 1.6% greater PMD (P = .26) than never users (test for interaction P = .001). Differences in PMD resulted mainly from differences in the dense area of the mammogram. CONCLUSION: Differences in PMD associated with differences in hormone exposure were greater in women who later developed breast cancer than in controls in each of the hormone exposures examined.
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: C Rauh; C C Hack; L Häberle; A Hein; A Engel; M G Schrauder; P A Fasching; S M Jud; A B Ekici; C R Loehberg; M Meier-Meitinger; S Ozan; R Schulz-Wendtland; M Uder; A Hartmann; D L Wachter; M W Beckmann; K Heusinger Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 2.915
Authors: Barbara J Fuhrman; Louise A Brinton; Ruth M Pfeiffer; Xia Xu; Timothy D Veenstra; Barbara E Teter; Celia Byrne; Cher M Dallal; Maddalena Barba; Paola C Muti; Gretchen L Gierach Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2012-06-26 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Zeina G Khodr; Mark A Sak; Ruth M Pfeiffer; Nebojsa Duric; Peter Littrup; Lisa Bey-Knight; Haythem Ali; Patricia Vallieres; Mark E Sherman; Gretchen L Gierach Journal: Med Phys Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Jesse A Dorchak; Sifat Maria; Joseph L Guarinoni; Anette Duensing; Stella Somiari; Jane Cavanaugh; Brenda Deyarmin; Hai Hu; Joji Iida; Craig D Shriver; Paula A Witt-Enderby Journal: Horm Cancer Date: 2018-04-23 Impact factor: 3.869
Authors: Siun M Walsh; Sandra B Brennan; Emily C Zabor; Laura H Rosenberger; Michelle Stempel; Lizza Lebron-Zapata; Mary L Gemignani Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2019-08-08 Impact factor: 5.344
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