OBJECTIVES: To examine the prognostic value of mammographic breast density (MBD) and mammographic features and their relationship with established prognostic factors in patients with invasive breast cancer. METHODS: Mammographic characteristics of 270 patients were analyzed. MBD was classified according to percentile density (<5%, 5-10%, 10-25%, 25-50%, 50-75%, >75%) and further categorized into very low density (VLD; <10%), low density (LOD; <25%) and mixed density (MID; >25%). Mammographic features were compared with established prognostic factors and patient outcomes while correcting for possible confounders. RESULTS: MBD was inversely associated with tumour grade (p = 0.019). Patients with LOD breasts had worse prognoses compared to those with MID breasts (disease-free survival 74.7% vs. 84.8%, p = 0.048; overall survival 75.3% vs. 90.2%, p = 0.003). Patients with VLD breasts showed the strongest significance compared to the remaining patients, even after adjusting for age, body mass index, and menopausal status. No other mammographic feature was prognostically significant. In Cox regression analysis, VLD proved to be an independent, poor prognostic feature (hazard ratio = 3.275; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer, very low MBD proved to be an independent prognostic feature, associated with higher tumour grade and predicted worse survival even after correcting for possible confounders. KEY POINTS: • Percentile mammographic breast density was associated with patient prognosis. • Very low density proved to be an independent poor prognostic factor. • Only patients with densities <10% displayed this difference in survival. • Mammographic breast density was inversely associated with histological tumour grade.
OBJECTIVES: To examine the prognostic value of mammographic breast density (MBD) and mammographic features and their relationship with established prognostic factors in patients with invasive breast cancer. METHODS: Mammographic characteristics of 270 patients were analyzed. MBD was classified according to percentile density (<5%, 5-10%, 10-25%, 25-50%, 50-75%, >75%) and further categorized into very low density (VLD; <10%), low density (LOD; <25%) and mixed density (MID; >25%). Mammographic features were compared with established prognostic factors and patient outcomes while correcting for possible confounders. RESULTS:MBD was inversely associated with tumour grade (p = 0.019). Patients with LOD breasts had worse prognoses compared to those with MID breasts (disease-free survival 74.7% vs. 84.8%, p = 0.048; overall survival 75.3% vs. 90.2%, p = 0.003). Patients with VLD breasts showed the strongest significance compared to the remaining patients, even after adjusting for age, body mass index, and menopausal status. No other mammographic feature was prognostically significant. In Cox regression analysis, VLD proved to be an independent, poor prognostic feature (hazard ratio = 3.275; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer, very low MBD proved to be an independent prognostic feature, associated with higher tumour grade and predicted worse survival even after correcting for possible confounders. KEY POINTS: • Percentile mammographic breast density was associated with patient prognosis. • Very low density proved to be an independent poor prognostic factor. • Only patients with densities <10% displayed this difference in survival. • Mammographic breast density was inversely associated with histological tumour grade.
Authors: Lisa J Martin; Olga Melnichouk; Helen Guo; Anna M Chiarelli; T Gregory Hislop; Martin J Yaffe; Salomon Minkin; John L Hopper; Norman F Boyd Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Louise Eriksson; Kamila Czene; Lena U Rosenberg; Sven Törnberg; Keith Humphreys; Per Hall Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2013-06-20 Impact factor: 6.466
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: 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
Authors: Margherita Pizzato; Greta Carioli; Stefano Rosso; Roberto Zanetti; Carlo La Vecchia Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2022-06-13 Impact factor: 2.532
Authors: Satu Tiainen; Amro Masarwah; Sanna Oikari; Kirsi Rilla; Kirsi Hämäläinen; Mazen Sudah; Anna Sutela; Ritva Vanninen; Juho Ikonen; Raija Tammi; Markku Tammi; Päivi Auvinen Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2019-11-12 Impact factor: 4.872