Literature DB >> 24130221

Explaining variance in the cumulus mammographic measures that predict breast cancer risk: a twins and sisters study.

Tuong L Nguyen1, Daniel F Schmidt, Enes Makalic, Gillian S Dite, Jennifer Stone, Carmel Apicella, Minh Bui, Robert J Macinnis, Fabrice Odefrey, Jennifer N Cawson, Susan A Treloar, Melissa C Southey, Graham G Giles, John L Hopper.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Mammographic density, the area of the mammographic image that appears white or bright, predicts breast cancer risk. We estimated the proportions of variance explained by questionnaire-measured breast cancer risk factors and by unmeasured residual familial factors.
METHODS: For 544 MZ and 339 DZ twin pairs and 1,558 non-twin sisters from 1,564 families, mammographic density was measured using the computer-assisted method Cumulus. We estimated associations using multilevel mixed-effects linear regression and studied familial aspects using a multivariate normal model.
RESULTS: The proportions of variance explained by age, body mass index (BMI), and other risk factors, respectively, were 4%, 1%, and 4% for dense area; 7%, 14%, and 4% for percent dense area; and 7%, 40%, and 1% for nondense area. Associations with dense area and percent dense area were in opposite directions than for nondense area. After adjusting for measured factors, the correlations of dense area with percent dense area and nondense area were 0.84 and -0.46, respectively. The MZ, DZ, and sister pair correlations were 0.59, 0.28, and 0.29 for dense area; 0.57, 0.30, and 0.28 for percent dense area; and 0.56, 0.27, and 0.28 for nondense area (SE = 0.02, 0.04, and 0.03, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Under the classic twin model, 50% to 60% (SE = 5%) of the variance of mammographic density measures that predict breast cancer risk are due to undiscovered genetic factors, and the remainder to as yet unknown individual-specific, nongenetic factors. IMPACT: Much remains to be learnt about the genetic and environmental determinants of mammographic density. ©2013 AACR.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24130221     DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-13-0481

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev        ISSN: 1055-9965            Impact factor:   4.254


  19 in total

1.  Odds per adjusted standard deviation: comparing strengths of associations for risk factors measured on different scales and across diseases and populations.

Authors:  John L Hopper
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2015-10-31       Impact factor: 4.897

2.  Longitudinal Study of Mammographic Density Measures That Predict Breast Cancer Risk.

Authors:  Kavitha Krishnan; Laura Baglietto; Jennifer Stone; Julie A Simpson; Gianluca Severi; Christopher F Evans; Robert J MacInnis; Graham G Giles; Carmel Apicella; John L Hopper
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2017-01-06       Impact factor: 4.254

3.  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

4.  Novel Associations between Common Breast Cancer Susceptibility Variants and Risk-Predicting Mammographic Density Measures.

Authors:  Jennifer Stone; Deborah J Thompson; Isabel Dos Santos Silva; Christopher Scott; Rulla M Tamimi; Sara Lindstrom; Peter Kraft; Aditi Hazra; Jingmei Li; Louise Eriksson; Kamila Czene; Per Hall; Matt Jensen; Julie Cunningham; Janet E Olson; Kristen Purrington; Fergus J Couch; Judith Brown; Jean Leyland; Ruth M L Warren; Robert N Luben; Kay-Tee Khaw; Paula Smith; Nicholas J Wareham; Sebastian M Jud; Katharina Heusinger; Matthias W Beckmann; Julie A Douglas; Kaanan P Shah; Heang-Ping Chan; Mark A Helvie; Loic Le Marchand; Laurence N Kolonel; Christy Woolcott; Gertraud Maskarinec; Christopher Haiman; Graham G Giles; Laura Baglietto; Kavitha Krishnan; Melissa C Southey; Carmel Apicella; Irene L Andrulis; Julia A Knight; Giske Ursin; Grethe I Grenaker Alnaes; Vessela N Kristensen; Anne-Lise Borresen-Dale; Inger Torhild Gram; Manjeet K Bolla; Qin Wang; Kyriaki Michailidou; Joe Dennis; Jacques Simard; Paul Pharoah; Alison M Dunning; Douglas F Easton; Peter A Fasching; V Shane Pankratz; John L Hopper; Celine M Vachon
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2015-04-10       Impact factor: 12.701

Review 5.  Reproductive Factors and Mammographic Density: Associations Among 24,840 Women and Comparison of Studies Using Digitized Film-Screen Mammography and Full-Field Digital Mammography.

Authors:  Stacey E Alexeeff; Nnaemeka U Odo; Russell McBride; Valerie McGuire; Ninah Achacoso; Joseph H Rothstein; Jafi A Lipson; Rhea Y Liang; Luana Acton; Martin J Yaffe; Alice S Whittemore; Daniel L Rubin; Weiva Sieh; Laurel A Habel
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2019-06-01       Impact factor: 4.897

6.  Genetic Aspects of Mammographic Density Measures Associated with Breast Cancer Risk.

Authors:  Shuai Li; Tuong L Nguyen; Tu Nguyen-Dumont; James G Dowty; Gillian S Dite; Zhoufeng Ye; Ho N Trinh; Christopher F Evans; Maxine Tan; Joohon Sung; Mark A Jenkins; Graham G Giles; John L Hopper; Melissa C Southey
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-06-02       Impact factor: 6.575

7.  Association of contralateral breast cancer risk with mammographic density defined at higher-than-conventional intensity thresholds.

Authors:  Gordon P Watt; Julia A Knight; Tuong L Nguyen; Anne S Reiner; Kathleen E Malone; Esther M John; Charles F Lynch; Jennifer D Brooks; Meghan Woods; Xiaolin Liang; Leslie Bernstein; Malcolm C Pike; John L Hopper; Jonine L Bernstein
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2022-04-04       Impact factor: 7.316

8.  Mammographic density and breast cancer risk by family history in women of white and Asian ancestry.

Authors:  Gertraud Maskarinec; Kaylae L Nakamura; Christy G Woolcott; Shannon M Conroy; Celia Byrne; Chisato Nagata; Giske Ursin; Celine M Vachon
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2015-03-12       Impact factor: 2.506

9.  Mammographic density and breast cancer in women from high risk families.

Authors:  Teresa Ramón Y Cajal; Isabel Chirivella; Josefa Miranda; Alexandre Teule; Ángel Izquierdo; Judith Balmaña; Ana Beatriz Sánchez-Heras; Gemma Llort; David Fisas; Virginia Lope; Elena Hernández-Agudo; María José Juan-Fita; Isabel Tena; Luis Robles; Carmen Guillén-Ponce; Pedro Pérez-Segura; Mari Sol Luque-Molina; Susana Hernando-Polo; Mónica Salinas; Joan Brunet; María Dolores Salas-Trejo; Agustí Barnadas; Marina Pollán
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2015-07-11       Impact factor: 6.466

10.  Mammographic density defined by higher than conventional brightness threshold better predicts breast cancer risk for full-field digital mammograms.

Authors:  Tuong Linh Nguyen; Ye Kyaw Aung; Christopher Francis Evans; Choi Yoon-Ho; Mark Anthony Jenkins; Joohon Sung; John Llewelyn Hopper; Yun-Mi Song
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2015-11-18       Impact factor: 6.466

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.