PURPOSE: Mammographic density, i.e., the radiographic appearance of the breast, is a strong predictor of breast cancer risk. To determine whether the association of breast density with breast cancer is modified by a first-degree family history of breast cancer (FHBC) in women of white and Asian ancestry, we analyzed data from four case-control studies conducted in the USA and Japan. METHODS: The study population included 1,699 breast cancer cases and 2,422 controls, of whom 45% reported white (N = 1,849) and 40% Asian (N = 1,633) ancestry. To standardize mammographic density assessment, a single observer re-read all mammograms using one type of interactive thresholding software. Logistic regression was applied to estimate odds ratios (OR) while adjusting for confounders. RESULTS: Overall, 496 (12%) of participants reported a FHBC, which was significantly associated with breast cancer risk in the adjusted model (OR 1.51; 95% CI 1.23-1.84). There was a statistically significant interaction on a multiplicative scale between FHBC and continuous percent density (per 10 % density: p = 0.03). The OR per 10% increase in percent density was higher among women with a FHBC (OR 1.30; 95% CI 1.13-1.49) than among those without a FHBC (OR 1.14; 1.09-1.20). This pattern was apparent in whites and Asians. The respective ORs were 1.45 (95% CI 1.17-1.80) versus 1.22 (95% CI 1.14-1.32) in whites, whereas the values in Asians were only 1.24 (95% CI 0.97-1.58) versus 1.09 (95% CI 1.00-1.19). CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the hypothesis that women with a FHBC appear to have a higher risk of breast cancer associated with percent mammographic density than women without a FHBC.
PURPOSE: Mammographic density, i.e., the radiographic appearance of the breast, is a strong predictor of breast cancer risk. To determine whether the association of breast density with breast cancer is modified by a first-degree family history of breast cancer (FHBC) in women of white and Asian ancestry, we analyzed data from four case-control studies conducted in the USA and Japan. METHODS: The study population included 1,699 breast cancer cases and 2,422 controls, of whom 45% reported white (N = 1,849) and 40% Asian (N = 1,633) ancestry. To standardize mammographic density assessment, a single observer re-read all mammograms using one type of interactive thresholding software. Logistic regression was applied to estimate odds ratios (OR) while adjusting for confounders. RESULTS: Overall, 496 (12%) of participants reported a FHBC, which was significantly associated with breast cancer risk in the adjusted model (OR 1.51; 95% CI 1.23-1.84). There was a statistically significant interaction on a multiplicative scale between FHBC and continuous percent density (per 10 % density: p = 0.03). The OR per 10% increase in percent density was higher among women with a FHBC (OR 1.30; 95% CI 1.13-1.49) than among those without a FHBC (OR 1.14; 1.09-1.20). This pattern was apparent in whites and Asians. The respective ORs were 1.45 (95% CI 1.17-1.80) versus 1.22 (95% CI 1.14-1.32) in whites, whereas the values in Asians were only 1.24 (95% CI 0.97-1.58) versus 1.09 (95% CI 1.00-1.19). CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the hypothesis that women with a FHBC appear to have a higher risk of breast cancer associated with percent mammographic density than women without a FHBC.
Authors: Shannon M Conroy; Christy G Woolcott; Karin R Koga; Celia Byrne; Chisato Nagata; Giske Ursin; Celine M Vachon; Martin J Yaffe; Ian Pagano; Gertraud Maskarinec Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2011-09-17 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Jajini S Varghese; Deborah J Thompson; Kyriaki Michailidou; Sara Lindström; Clare Turnbull; Judith Brown; Jean Leyland; Ruth M L Warren; Robert N Luben; Ruth J Loos; Nicholas J Wareham; Johanna Rommens; Andrew D Paterson; Lisa J Martin; Celine M Vachon; Christopher G Scott; Elizabeth J Atkinson; Fergus J Couch; Carmel Apicella; Melissa C Southey; Jennifer Stone; Jingmei Li; Louise Eriksson; Kamila Czene; Norman F Boyd; Per Hall; John L Hopper; Rulla M Tamimi; Nazneen Rahman; Douglas F Easton Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2012-01-19 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Celine M Vachon; Kathleen R Brandt; Karthik Ghosh; Christopher G Scott; Shaun D Maloney; Michael J Carston; V Shane Pankratz; Thomas A Sellers Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 4.254
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: Elissa M Ozanne; Adrienne O'Connell; Colleen Bouzan; Phil Bosinoff; Taryn Rourke; Dana Dowd; Brian Drohan; Fred Millham; Pat Griffin; Elkan F Halpern; Alan Semine; Kevin S Hughes Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2012-01-12 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Gretchen L Gierach; Jennifer T Loud; Catherine K Chow; Sheila A Prindiville; Jennifer Eng-Wong; Peter W Soballe; Claudia Giambartolomei; Phuong L Mai; Claudia E Galbo; Kathryn Nichols; Kathleen A Calzone; Celine Vachon; Mitchell H Gail; Mark H Greene Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2010-02-04 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Sara Lindström; Celine M Vachon; Jingmei Li; Jajini Varghese; Deborah Thompson; Ruth Warren; Judith Brown; Jean Leyland; Tina Audley; Nicholas J Wareham; Ruth J F Loos; Andrew D Paterson; Johanna Rommens; Darryl Waggott; Lisa J Martin; Christopher G Scott; V Shane Pankratz; Susan E Hankinson; Aditi Hazra; David J Hunter; John L Hopper; Melissa C Southey; Stephen J Chanock; Isabel dos Santos Silva; JianJun Liu; Louise Eriksson; Fergus J Couch; Jennifer Stone; Carmel Apicella; Kamila Czene; Peter Kraft; Per Hall; Douglas F Easton; Norman F Boyd; Rulla M Tamimi Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2011-01-30 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Celine M Vachon; Carla H van Gils; Thomas A Sellers; Karthik Ghosh; Sandhya Pruthi; Kathleen R Brandt; V Shane Pankratz Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2007 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: Kylie L Gorringe; Ian G Campbell; Dane Cheasley; Lisa Devereux; Siobhan Hughes; Carolyn Nickson; Pietro Procopio; Grant Lee; Na Li; Vicki Pridmore; Kenneth Elder; G Bruce Mann; Tanjina Kader; Simone M Rowley; Stephen B Fox; David Byrne; Hugo Saunders; Kenji M Fujihara; Belle Lim Journal: NPJ Breast Cancer Date: 2020-08-07
Authors: S Hüser; S Guth; H G Joost; S T Soukup; J Köhrle; L Kreienbrock; P Diel; D W Lachenmeier; G Eisenbrand; G Vollmer; U Nöthlings; D Marko; A Mally; T Grune; L Lehmann; P Steinberg; S E Kulling Journal: Arch Toxicol Date: 2018-08-21 Impact factor: 5.153
Authors: Thomas P Ahern; Brian L Sprague; Michael C S Bissell; Diana L Miglioretti; Diana S M Buist; Dejana Braithwaite; Karla Kerlikowske Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2017-01-17 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Dejana Braithwaite; Diana L Miglioretti; Weiwei Zhu; Joshua Demb; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Brian Sprague; Jeffrey A Tice; Tracy Onega; Louise M Henderson; Diana S M Buist; Elad Ziv; Louise C Walter; Karla Kerlikowske Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2018-04-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Hyuna Sung; Jiansong Ren; Jing Li; Min Dai; Xiaohong R Yang; Jie He; Ruth M Pfeiffer; Yong Wang; Jennifer L Guida; Yi Fang; Jufang Shi; Kai Zhang; Ni Li; Shen Wang; Luopei Wei; Nan Hu; Gretchen L Gierach Journal: NPJ Breast Cancer Date: 2018-02-06
Authors: Tara M Friebel-Klingner; Sarah Ehsan; Emily F Conant; Despina Kontos; Susan M Domchek; Anne Marie McCarthy Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-08-03 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Kylie L Gorringe; Ian G Campbell; Dane Cheasley; Lisa Devereux; Siobhan Hughes; Carolyn Nickson; Pietro Procopio; Grant Lee; Na Li; Vicki Pridmore; Kenneth Elder; G Bruce Mann; Tanjina Kader; Simone M Rowley; Stephen B Fox; David Byrne; Hugo Saunders; Kenji M Fujihara; Belle Lim Journal: NPJ Breast Cancer Date: 2020-08-07