| Literature DB >> 25346388 |
Norman F Boyd, Ella Huszti, Olga Melnichouk, Lisa J Martin, Greg Hislop, Anna Chiarelli, Martin J Yaffe, Salomon Minkin.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Percent mammographic density (PMD) is associated with an increased risk of interval breast cancer in screening programs, as are younger age, pre-menopausal status, lower body mass index and hormone therapy. These factors are also associated with variations in PMD. We have examined whether these variables influence the relative frequency of interval and screen-detected breast cancer, independently or through their associations with PMD. We also examined the association of tumor size with PMD and dense and non-dense areas in screen-detected and interval breast cancers.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25346388 PMCID: PMC4187338 DOI: 10.1186/s13058-014-0417-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Breast Cancer Res ISSN: 1465-5411 Impact factor: 6.466
Selected characteristics of mammographic screening programs
| Program | National Breast Screening Study (NBSS) | British Columbia (SMPBC) | Ontario (OBSP) |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 1984-90 | 1988-present | 1992-present |
|
| 1984-90 | 1993-99 | 1993-98 |
|
| 45,000 | 250,584 | 166,254 |
|
| Self-referral | Letter of invitation, physician and self-referral | Physician and self-referral |
|
| 15 | 19 | 8 |
|
| 40-59 | 40-70 | 50-69 |
|
| Annual | Annual | Every 2 years |
|
| Yes | No | Yes |
Selected characteristics of screen-detected and interval cancers
| Mean (SD) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Screen detected N?=?718 | Interval cancers N?=?125 | ||
| Age (years) | 57.2 (9.0) | 52.8 (8.3) | <0.0001 |
| Body mass index (kg/m2) | 25.3 (4.3) | 23.9 (3.5) | 0.0008 |
| Age at menarche (years) | 12.9 (1.5) N?=?701 | 12.8 (1.6) N?=?122 | 0.76 |
| Parity (% parous) | 84.3 | 82.4 | 0.60 |
| Age at first live birth (years) | 24.7 (4.6) N?=?605 | 24.7 (4.8) N?=?103 | 0.96 |
| Number of live births | 2.53 (1.8) | 2.32 (1.6) | 0.24 |
| Menopausal status (% post-menopausal) | 78.3 | 57.6 | <0.0001 |
| Age at menopause (years) | 46.7 (6.8) N?=?496 | 47.1 (5.9) N?=?67 | 0.49 |
| Current use of HRTb (% yes) | 18.3 | 20.8 | 0.50 |
| Previous breast biopsy (% yes) | 16.6 N?=?709 | 21.8 N?=?124 | 0.17 |
| First-degree relatives with breast cancer (% yes) | 20.6 N?=?714 | 20.0 | 0.88 |
| Percent mammographic density | 30.3 (19.1) | 42.2 (20.4) | <0.0001 |
| Dense area (cm2) | 36.7 (25.6) | 45.3 (28.5) | 0.001 |
| Non-dense area (cm2) | 100.4 (60.1) | 67.2 (44.6) | <0.0001 |
| Total area (cm2) | 137.0 (60.4) | 112.5 (54.2) | <0.0001 |
aP value is from the univariable logistic regression model analysis of risk of interval vs. screen-detected breast cancer; bhormone replacement therapy.
Figure 1Screen-detected and interval breast cancers according to tertiles of age and BMI at entry. Tertiles of age: Low (39 to 52); Middle (52 to 60); High (60 to 80). Tertiles of BMI: Low (16 to 23); Middle (23 to 26); High (26 to 50). aUnadjusted; bmutually adjusted (age and BMI); cmutually adjusted and adjusted for dense and non-dense area. BMI: body mass index; OR: odds ratio.
Figure 2Screen-detected and interval breast cancers according to tertiles of percent density, dense and non-dense area. Tertiles of percent density: Low (0 to 20); Middle (20 to 41); High (41 to 84). Tertiles of dense area: Low (0 to 24); Middle (24 to 43); High (43 to 176). Tertiles of non-dense area: Low (8 to 61); Middle (61 to 112); High (112 to 344). aUnadjusted; badjusted for age and BMI; cmutually adjusted (dense and non-dense area) and adjusted for age and BMI. OR: odds ratio.
Average maximum tumor diameter (cms) of screen-detected and interval cancers by tertiles of mammographic measures
| Mammographic measure | Cancer detection | Least squares means (cms)a(95% CI) by tertiles of mammographic measures | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low | Middle | High |
| ||
| Percent density | All | 1.29 (1.16, 1.42) N?=?277 | 1.46 (1.32, 1.60) N?=?269 | 1.45 (1.32, 1.60) N?=?275 |
|
| Screen detected | 1.25 (1.13, 1.39) N?=?260 | 1.36 (1.23, 1.51) N?=?228 | 1.36 (1.22, 1.51) N?=?213 |
| |
| Interval cancers | 1.50 (1.06, 2.13) N?=?17 | 2.02 (1.61, 2.54) N?=?41 | 1.87 (1.55, 2.26) N?=?62 |
| |
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Dense area | All | 1.33 (1.20, 1.47) N?=?275 | 1.35 (1.22, 1.48) N?=?273 | 1.50 (1.37, 1.65) N?=?273 |
|
| Screen detected | 1.27 (1.15, 1.41) N?=?247 | 1.27 (1.15, 1.40) N?=?236 | 1.43 (1.29 1.50) N?=?218 |
| |
| Interval cancers | 1.66 (1.26, 2.19) N?=?28 | 1.98 (1.56, 2.52) N?=?37 | 1.87 (1.53, 2.27) N?=?55 |
| |
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Non-dense area | All | 1.39 (1.25, 1.54) N?=?276 | 1.45 (1.31, 1.60) N?=?271 | 1.35 (1.22, 1.51) N?=?274 |
|
| Screen detected | 1.31 (1.17, 1.46) N?=?216 | 1.39 (1.25, 1.55) N?=?227 | 1.29 (1.16, 1.44) N?=?258 |
| |
| Interval cancers | 1.84 (1.51, 2.24) N?=?60 | 1.81 (1.45, 2.25) N?=?44 | 2.06 (1.43, 2.96) N?=?16 |
| |
|
|
|
|
| ||
Least squares means were obtained from linear regression models with an interaction between cancer detection method and tertiles of mammographic measures. Tumor diameter in cms was log transformed for the analysis. Least squares means and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are shown transformed back to the original scale. For N?=?15 subjects with recorded tumor size?=?0, the minimum recorded tumor size?=?0.1 cm was used in the analysis. For N?=?17 subjects with screen detected, and for N?=?5 subjects with interval breast cancer the tumor diameter was not available. For tertiles of percent mammographic density, the model was adjusted for age, body mass index, and menopausal status. For tertiles of dense area, the model was, in addition, adjusted for non-dense area (continuous), and for tertiles of non-dense area, the model was adjusted for dense area (continuous). bP values for the test for linear trend across tertiles of mammographic measurements. cP values for comparing least square means of maximum tumor diameter in screen-detected and interval breast cancers within tertiles of mammographic measures. The P values were adjusted for multiple comparisons (the Tukey-Kramer adjustment).