Literature DB >> 21877142

Tissue composition of mammographically dense and non-dense breast tissue.

Karthik Ghosh1, Kathleen R Brandt, Carol Reynolds, Christopher G Scott, V S Pankratz, Darren L Riehle, Wilma L Lingle, Tonye Odogwu, Derek C Radisky, Daniel W Visscher, James N Ingle, Lynn C Hartmann, Celine M Vachon.   

Abstract

Mammographic density is a strong risk factor for breast cancer but its underlying biology in healthy women is not well-defined. Using a novel collection of core biopsies from mammographically dense versus non-dense regions of the breasts of healthy women, we examined histologic and molecular differences between these two tissue types. Eligible participants were 40 + years, had a screening mammogram and no prior breast cancer or current endocrine therapy. Mammograms were used to identify dense and non-dense regions and ultrasound-guided core biopsies were performed to obtain tissue from these regions. Quantitative assessment of epithelium, stroma, and fat was performed on dense and non-dense cores. Molecular markers including Ki-67, estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) were also assessed for participants who had >0% epithelial area in both dense and non-dense tissue. Signed rank test was used to assess within woman differences in epithelium, stroma and fat between dense and non-dense tissue. Differences in molecular markers (Ki-67, ER, and PR) were analyzed using generalized linear models, adjusting for total epithelial area. Fifty-nine women, mean age 51 years (range: 40-82), were eligible for analyses. Dense tissue was comprised of greater mean areas of epithelium and stroma (1.1 and 9.2 mm(2) more, respectively) but less fat (6.0 mm(2) less) than non-dense tissue. There were no statistically significant differences in relative expression of Ki-67 (P = 0.82), ER (P = 0.09), or PR (P = 0.96) between dense and non-dense tissue. Consistent with prior reports, we found that mammographically dense areas of the breast differ histologically from non-dense areas, reflected in greater proportions of epithelium and stroma and lesser proportions of fat in the dense compared to non-dense breast tissue. Studies of both epithelial and stromal components are important in understanding the association between mammographic density and breast cancer risk.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21877142      PMCID: PMC3707294          DOI: 10.1007/s10549-011-1727-4

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


  43 in total

Review 1.  Breast tissue composition and susceptibility to breast cancer.

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

2.  Breast cancer risk by breast density, menopause, and postmenopausal hormone therapy use.

Authors:  Karla Kerlikowske; Andrea J Cook; Diana S M Buist; Steve R Cummings; Celine Vachon; Pamela Vacek; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-07-19       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  Association between mammographic density and age-related lobular involution of the breast.

Authors:  Karthik Ghosh; Lynn C Hartmann; Carol Reynolds; Daniel W Visscher; Kathleen R Brandt; Robert A Vierkant; Christopher G Scott; Derek C Radisky; Thomas A Sellers; V Shane Pankratz; Celine M Vachon
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-03-29       Impact factor: 44.544

4.  Image-guided sampling reveals increased stroma and lower glandular complexity in mammographically dense breast tissue.

Authors:  Suling J Lin; Jennifer Cawson; Prue Hill; Izhak Haviv; Mark Jenkins; John L Hopper; Melissa C Southey; Ian G Campbell; Erik W Thompson
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2011-01-22       Impact factor: 4.872

5.  The measurement of pain in intensive care unit: comparison of 5 self-report intensity scales.

Authors:  Gérald Chanques; Eric Viel; Jean-Michel Constantin; Boris Jung; Sylvie de Lattre; Julie Carr; Moussa Cissé; Jean-Yves Lefrant; Samir Jaber
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2010-09-16       Impact factor: 6.961

6.  Multidisciplinary and multifaceted outpatient management of patients with osteoarthritis: protocol for a randomised, controlled trial.

Authors:  Rikke Helene Moe; Till Uhlig; Ingvild Kjeken; Kåre Birger Hagen; Tore Kristian Kvien; Margreth Grotle
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2010-11-01       Impact factor: 2.362

7.  The histopathology of mammographic patterns.

Authors:  E R Fisher; A Palekar; W S Kim; C Redmond
Journal:  Am J Clin Pathol       Date:  1978-04       Impact factor: 2.493

8.  Lobular involution: localized phenomenon or field effect?

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

9.  Calm or not calm: the question of anxiety in the perianesthesia patient.

Authors:  Siv Rosén; Margita Svensson; Ulrica Nilsson
Journal:  J Perianesth Nurs       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 1.084

10.  Mammographic density and epithelial histopathologic markers.

Authors:  Martijn Verheus; Gertraud Maskarinec; Eva Erber; Jana S Steude; Jeffrey Killeen; Brenda Y Hernandez; J Mark Cline
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2009-06-13       Impact factor: 4.430

View more
  38 in total

Review 1.  A review of the influence of mammographic density on breast cancer clinical and pathological phenotype.

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

2.  Dense breast tissue in postmenopausal women is associated with a pro-inflammatory microenvironment in vivo.

Authors:  Annelie Abrahamsson; Anna Rzepecka; Thobias Romu; Magnus Borga; Olof Dahlqvist Leinhard; Peter Lundberg; Johan Kihlberg; Charlotta Dabrosin
Journal:  Oncoimmunology       Date:  2016-09-02       Impact factor: 8.110

Review 3.  Mammographic density is not a worthwhile examination to distinguish high cancer risk women in screening.

Authors:  Catherine Colin; Anne-Marie Schott; Pierre-Jean Valette
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-06-28       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 4.  Measurement of breast density with digital breast tomosynthesis--a systematic review.

Authors:  E U Ekpo; M F McEntee
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2014-08-22       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Age at Menarche and Late Adolescent Adiposity Associated with Mammographic Density on Processed Digital Mammograms in 24,840 Women.

Authors:  Stacey E Alexeeff; Nnaemeka U Odo; Jafi A Lipson; Ninah Achacoso; Joseph H Rothstein; Martin J Yaffe; Rhea Y Liang; Luana Acton; Valerie McGuire; Alice S Whittemore; Daniel L Rubin; Weiva Sieh; Laurel A Habel
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2017-07-11       Impact factor: 4.254

6.  Stiff stroma increases breast cancer risk by inducing the oncogene ZNF217.

Authors:  Jason J Northey; Alexander S Barrett; Irene Acerbi; Mary-Kate Hayward; Stephanie Talamantes; Ivory S Dean; Janna K Mouw; Suzanne M Ponik; Jonathon N Lakins; Po-Jui Huang; Junmin Wu; Quanming Shi; Susan Samson; Patricia J Keely; Rita A Mukhtar; Jan T Liphardt; John A Shepherd; E Shelley Hwang; Yunn-Yi Chen; Kirk C Hansen; Laurie E Littlepage; Valerie M Weaver
Journal:  J Clin Invest       Date:  2020-11-02       Impact factor: 14.808

7.  Estimation of breast percent density in raw and processed full field digital mammography images via adaptive fuzzy c-means clustering and support vector machine segmentation.

Authors:  Brad M Keller; Diane L Nathan; Yan Wang; Yuanjie Zheng; James C Gee; Emily F Conant; Despina Kontos
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 8.  Review of quantitative multiscale imaging of breast cancer.

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

9.  Alcohol and Tobacco Use in Relation to Mammographic Density in 23,456 Women.

Authors:  Laurel A Habel; Weiva Sieh; Russell B McBride; Kezhen Fei; Joseph H Rothstein; Stacey E Alexeeff; Xiaoyu Song; Lori C Sakoda; Valerie McGuire; Ninah Achacoso; Luana Acton; Rhea Y Liang; Jafi A Lipson; Martin J Yaffe; Daniel L Rubin; Alice S Whittemore
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2020-02-17       Impact factor: 4.254

10.  Digital histologic analysis reveals morphometric patterns of age-related involution in breast epithelium and stroma.

Authors:  Rupninder Sandhu; Lynn Chollet-Hinton; Erin L Kirk; Bentley Midkiff; Melissa A Troester
Journal:  Hum Pathol       Date:  2015-10-23       Impact factor: 3.466

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.