BACKGROUND: Mammographic breast density (BD) is an independent risk factor for breast cancer. The effects of bariatric surgery on BD are unknown. OBJECTIVES: To investigate BD changes after sleeve gastrectomy (SG). SETTING: University hospital, United States. METHODS: Fifty women with mammograms before and after SG performed from 2009 to 2015 were identified after excluding patients with a history of breast cancer, hormone replacement, and/or breast surgery. Patient age, menopausal status, co-morbidities, hemoglobin A1C, and body mass index were collected. Craniocaudal mammographic views before and after SG were interpreted by a blinded radiologist and analyzed by software to obtain breast imaging reporting and data system density categories, breast area, BD, and absolute dense breast area (ADA). Analyses were performed using χ2, McNemar's test, t test, and linear regressions. RESULTS: Radiologist interpretation revealed a significant increase in breast imaging reporting and data system B+C category (68% versus 54%; P = .0095) and BD (9.8 ± 7.4% versus 8.3 ± 6.4%; P = .0006) after SG. Software analyses showed a postoperative decrease in breast area (75,398.9 ± 22,941.2 versus 90,655.9 ± 25,621.0 pixels; P < .0001) and ADA (7287.1 ± 3951.3 versus 8204.6 ± 4769.9 pixels; P = .0314) with no significant change in BD. Reduction in ADA was accentuated in postmenopausal patients. Declining breast area was directly correlated with body mass index reduction (R2 = .4495; P < 0.0001). Changes in breast rather than whole body adiposity better explained ADA reduction. Neither diabetes status nor changes in hemoglobin A1C correlated with changes in ADA. CONCLUSIONS: ADA decreases after SG, particularly in postmenopausal patients. Software-generated ADA may be more accurate than radiologist-estimated BD or breast imaging reporting and data system for capturing changes in dense breast tissue after SG.
BACKGROUND: Mammographic breast density (BD) is an independent risk factor for breast cancer. The effects of bariatric surgery on BD are unknown. OBJECTIVES: To investigate BD changes after sleeve gastrectomy (SG). SETTING: University hospital, United States. METHODS: Fifty women with mammograms before and after SG performed from 2009 to 2015 were identified after excluding patients with a history of breast cancer, hormone replacement, and/or breast surgery. Patient age, menopausal status, co-morbidities, hemoglobin A1C, and body mass index were collected. Craniocaudal mammographic views before and after SG were interpreted by a blinded radiologist and analyzed by software to obtain breast imaging reporting and data system density categories, breast area, BD, and absolute dense breast area (ADA). Analyses were performed using χ2, McNemar's test, t test, and linear regressions. RESULTS: Radiologist interpretation revealed a significant increase in breast imaging reporting and data system B+C category (68% versus 54%; P = .0095) and BD (9.8 ± 7.4% versus 8.3 ± 6.4%; P = .0006) after SG. Software analyses showed a postoperative decrease in breast area (75,398.9 ± 22,941.2 versus 90,655.9 ± 25,621.0 pixels; P < .0001) and ADA (7287.1 ± 3951.3 versus 8204.6 ± 4769.9 pixels; P = .0314) with no significant change in BD. Reduction in ADA was accentuated in postmenopausal patients. Declining breast area was directly correlated with body mass index reduction (R2 = .4495; P < 0.0001). Changes in breast rather than whole body adiposity better explained ADA reduction. Neither diabetes status nor changes in hemoglobin A1C correlated with changes in ADA. CONCLUSIONS:ADA decreases after SG, particularly in postmenopausal patients. Software-generated ADA may be more accurate than radiologist-estimated BD or breast imaging reporting and data system for capturing changes in dense breast tissue after SG.
Keywords:
Bariatric surgery; Breast cancer; Breast cancer risk; Breast density; Dense breast tissue; Diabetes; Glucose metabolism; Mammographic breast density; Mammography; Menopausal status; Metabolic surgery; Postmenopausal; Premenopausal; Sleeve gastrectomy; Weight loss surgery
Authors: Jun Wei; Heang-Ping Chan; Mark A Helvie; Marilyn A Roubidoux; Berkman Sahiner; Lubomir M Hadjiiski; Chuan Zhou; Sophie Paquerault; Thomas Chenevert; Mitchell M Goodsitt Journal: Med Phys Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Susann E Schetter; Terryl J Hartman; Jason Liao; John P Richie; Bogdan Prokopczyk; Cindy DuBrock; Carina Signori; Christopher Hamilton; Laurence M Demers; Karam El-Bayoumy; Andrea Manni Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2014-06-21 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Philip R Schauer; Deepak L Bhatt; John P Kirwan; Kathy Wolski; Stacy A Brethauer; Sankar D Navaneethan; Ali Aminian; Claire E Pothier; Esther S H Kim; Steven E Nissen; Sangeeta R Kashyap Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-03-31 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Béatrice Lauby-Secretan; Chiara Scoccianti; Dana Loomis; Yann Grosse; Franca Bianchini; Kurt Straif Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-08-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Hanne Frydenberg; Vidar G Flote; Anita Iversen; Sissi E Finstad; Anne-Sofie Furberg; Peter A Torjesen; Tom Wilsgaard; Ellen Schlichting; Peter T Ellison; Giske Ursin; Inger Thune Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2014-05-07 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Nasreen A Vohra; Swapnil D Kachare; Paul Vos; Bruce F Schroeder; Olga Schuth; Dylan Suttle; Timothy L Fitzgerald; Jan H Wong; Kathryn M Verbanac Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Laura M Sipe; Mehdi Chaib; Emily B Korba; Heejoon Jo; Mary Camille Lovely; Brittany R Counts; Ubaid Tanveer; Jeremiah R Holt; Jared C Clements; Neena A John; Deidre Daria; Tony N Marion; Margaret S Bohm; Radhika Sekhri; Ajeeth K Pingili; Bin Teng; James A Carson; D Neil Hayes; Matthew J Davis; Katherine L Cook; Joseph F Pierre; Liza Makowski Journal: Elife Date: 2022-07-01 Impact factor: 8.713