Literature DB >> 23239150

Is mammographic density differentially associated with breast cancer according to receptor status? A meta-analysis.

Sebastien Antoni1, Annie J Sasco, Isabel dos Santos Silva, Valerie McCormack.   

Abstract

Mammographic density (MD) is a strong marker of breast cancer risk, but it is debated whether the association holds, and is of a similar magnitude, for different subtypes of breast cancer defined by receptor status or gene expression profiles. A literature search conducted in June 2012 was used to identify all studies that had investigated the association of MD with subtype-specific breast cancer, independent of age. 7 cohort/case-control and 12 case-only studies were included, comprising a total of >24,000 breast cancer cases. Random effects meta-analysis models were used to combine relative risks (RR) of MD with subtype-specific breast cancer for case-control studies, and in case-only studies to combine relative risk ratios (RRR) of receptor positive versus negative breast tumors. In case-control/cohort studies, relative to women in the lowest density category, women in the highest density category had 3.1-fold (95 % confidence interval [CI] 2.2, 4.2) and 3.2-fold (1.7, 5.9) increased risk of estrogen receptor positive (ER+) and ER- breast cancer, respectively. In case-only analyses, RRRs of breast tumors being ER+ versus ER- were 1.13 (95 % CI 0.89, 1.42) for medium versus minimal MD. MD remained associated with screen-detected ER+ tumors, despite the expectation of this association to be attenuated due to masking bias and overdiagnoses of ER+ tumors. In eight contributing studies, the association of MD did not differ by HER2 status. This combined evidence strengthens the importance of MD as a strong marker of overall and of subtype-specific risk, and confirms its value in overall breast cancer risk assessment and monitoring for both research and clinical purposes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23239150     DOI: 10.1007/s10549-012-2362-4

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


  36 in total

1.  Risk Factors That Increase Risk of Estrogen Receptor-Positive and -Negative Breast Cancer.

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

2.  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

3.  Association of mammographic density measures and breast cancer "intrinsic" molecular subtypes.

Authors:  Geffen Kleinstern; Christopher G Scott; Rulla M Tamimi; Matthew R Jensen; V Shane Pankratz; Kimberly A Bertrand; Aaron D Norman; Daniel W Visscher; Fergus J Couch; Kathleen Brandt; John Shepherd; Fang-Fang Wu; Yunn-Yi Chen; Steven R Cummings; Stacey Winham; Karla Kerlikowske; Celine M Vachon
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2021-01-04       Impact factor: 4.872

4.  Identifying women with dense breasts at high risk for interval cancer: a cohort study.

Authors:  Karla Kerlikowske; Weiwei Zhu; Anna N A Tosteson; Brian L Sprague; Jeffrey A Tice; Constance D Lehman; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2015-05-19       Impact factor: 25.391

5.  Mammographic Density and Prediction of Nodal Status in Breast Cancer Patients.

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

6.  Racial Differences in Quantitative Measures of Area and Volumetric Breast Density.

Authors:  Anne Marie McCarthy; Brad M Keller; Lauren M Pantalone; Meng-Kang Hsieh; Marie Synnestvedt; Emily F Conant; Katrina Armstrong; Despina Kontos
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2016-04-29       Impact factor: 13.506

7.  Alcohol consumption and breast cancer risk by estrogen receptor status: in a pooled analysis of 20 studies.

Authors:  Seungyoun Jung; Molin Wang; Kristin Anderson; Laura Baglietto; Leif Bergkvist; Leslie Bernstein; Piet A van den Brandt; Louise Brinton; Julie E Buring; A Heather Eliassen; Roni Falk; Susan M Gapstur; Graham G Giles; Gary Goodman; Judith Hoffman-Bolton; Pamela L Horn-Ross; Manami Inoue; Laurence N Kolonel; Vittorio Krogh; Marie Lof; Paige Maas; Anthony B Miller; Marian L Neuhouser; Yikyung Park; Kim Robien; Thomas E Rohan; Stephanie Scarmo; Leo J Schouten; Sabina Sieri; Victoria L Stevens; Schoichiro Tsugane; Kala Visvanathan; Lynne R Wilkens; Alicja Wolk; Elisabete Weiderpass; Walter C Willett; Anne Zeleniuch-Jacquotte; Shumin M Zhang; Xuehong Zhang; Regina G Ziegler; Stephanie A Smith-Warner
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2015-08-28       Impact factor: 7.196

Review 8.  Effects of obesity on hormonally driven cancer in women.

Authors:  Kelle H Moley; Graham A Colditz
Journal:  Sci Transl Med       Date:  2016-01-27       Impact factor: 17.956

9.  Multiple metabolic risk factors and mammographic breast density.

Authors:  Parisa Tehranifar; Diane Reynolds; Xiaozhou Fan; Bernadette Boden-Albala; Natalie J Engmann; Julie D Flom; Mary Beth Terry
Journal:  Ann Epidemiol       Date:  2014-03-03       Impact factor: 3.797

10.  Alcohol intake from early adulthood to midlife and mammographic density.

Authors:  Jasmine A McDonald; Karin B Michels; Barbara A Cohn; Julie D Flom; Parisa Tehranifar; Mary Beth Terry
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2016-02-01       Impact factor: 2.506

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.