Michael S Shawky1,2, Cecilia W Huo3, Kara Britt4,5, Erik W Thompson6,7,8, Michael A Henderson3,5, Andrew Redfern9. 1. Department of Head and Neck and Endocrine Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Alexandria, Alexandria, Egypt. 2. Department of Breast Surgery, St Bartholomew Hospital (Barts), London, UK. 3. Department of Surgery, St Vincent's Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 4. Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Grattan Street, Parkville, Melbourne, VIC, 3010, Australia. 5. Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 6. Department of Surgery, St Vincent's Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. e2.thompson@qut.edu.au. 7. Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation and School of Biomedical Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. e2.thompson@qut.edu.au. 8. Translational Research Institute, Rm 7031, 37 Kent St., Woolloongabba, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. e2.thompson@qut.edu.au. 9. School of Medicine, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: It is well established that high mammographic density (MD), when adjusted for age and body mass index, is one of the strongest known risk factors for breast cancer (BC), and also associates with higher incidence of interval cancers in screening due to the masking of early mammographic abnormalities. Increasing research is being undertaken to determine the underlying histological and biochemical determinants of MD and their consequences for BC pathogenesis, anticipating that improved mechanistic insights may lead to novel preventative or treatment interventions. At the same time, technological advances in digital and contrast mammography are such that the validity of well-established relationships needs to be re-examined in this context. METHODS: With attention to old versus new technologies, we conducted a literature review to summarise the relationships between clinicopathologic features of BC and the density of the surrounding breast tissue on mammography, including the associations with BC biological features inclusive of subtype, and implications for the clinical disease course encompassing relapse, progression, treatment response and survival. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: There is reasonable evidence to support positive relationships between high MD (HMD) and tumour size, lymph node positivity and local relapse in the absence of radiotherapy, but not between HMD and LVI, regional relapse or distant metastasis. Conflicting data exist for associations of HMD with tumour location, grade, intrinsic subtype, receptor status, second primary incidence and survival, which need further confirmatory studies. We did not identify any relationships that did not hold up when data involving newer imaging techniques were employed in analysis.
PURPOSE: It is well established that high mammographic density (MD), when adjusted for age and body mass index, is one of the strongest known risk factors for breast cancer (BC), and also associates with higher incidence of interval cancers in screening due to the masking of early mammographic abnormalities. Increasing research is being undertaken to determine the underlying histological and biochemical determinants of MD and their consequences for BC pathogenesis, anticipating that improved mechanistic insights may lead to novel preventative or treatment interventions. At the same time, technological advances in digital and contrast mammography are such that the validity of well-established relationships needs to be re-examined in this context. METHODS: With attention to old versus new technologies, we conducted a literature review to summarise the relationships between clinicopathologic features of BC and the density of the surrounding breast tissue on mammography, including the associations with BC biological features inclusive of subtype, and implications for the clinical disease course encompassing relapse, progression, treatment response and survival. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: There is reasonable evidence to support positive relationships between high MD (HMD) and tumour size, lymph node positivity and local relapse in the absence of radiotherapy, but not between HMD and LVI, regional relapse or distant metastasis. Conflicting data exist for associations of HMD with tumour location, grade, intrinsic subtype, receptor status, second primary incidence and survival, which need further confirmatory studies. We did not identify any relationships that did not hold up when data involving newer imaging techniques were employed in analysis.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Breast cancer pathology; Mammographic density; Oestrogen receptor
Authors: Norman F Boyd; Helen Guo; Lisa J Martin; Limei Sun; Jennifer Stone; Eve Fishell; Roberta A Jong; Greg Hislop; Anna Chiarelli; Salomon Minkin; Martin J Yaffe Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-01-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: C Rauh; C C Hack; L Häberle; A Hein; A Engel; M G Schrauder; P A Fasching; S M Jud; A B Ekici; C R Loehberg; M Meier-Meitinger; S Ozan; R Schulz-Wendtland; M Uder; A Hartmann; D L Wachter; M W Beckmann; K Heusinger Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 2.915
Authors: Karthik Ghosh; Celine M Vachon; V Shane Pankratz; Robert A Vierkant; Stephanie S Anderson; Kathleen R Brandt; Daniel W Visscher; Carol Reynolds; Marlene H Frost; Lynn C Hartmann Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2010-10-29 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Gillian Mitchell; Antonis C Antoniou; Ruth Warren; Susan Peock; Judith Brown; Russell Davies; Jenny Mattison; Margaret Cook; Iqbal Warsi; D Gareth Evans; Diana Eccles; Fiona Douglas; Joan Paterson; Shirley Hodgson; Louise Izatt; Trevor Cole; Lucy Burgess; Ros Eeles; Douglas F Easton Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2006-02-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Kavitha Krishnan; Laura Baglietto; Carmel Apicella; Jennifer Stone; Melissa C Southey; Dallas R English; Graham G Giles; John L Hopper Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2016-06-18 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: Jason J Northey; Alexander S Barrett; Irene Acerbi; Mary-Kate Hayward; Stephanie Talamantes; Ivory S Dean; Janna K Mouw; Suzanne M Ponik; Jonathon N Lakins; Po-Jui Huang; Junmin Wu; Quanming Shi; Susan Samson; Patricia J Keely; Rita A Mukhtar; Jan T Liphardt; John A Shepherd; E Shelley Hwang; Yunn-Yi Chen; Kirk C Hansen; Laurie E Littlepage; Valerie M Weaver Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2020-11-02 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Yuan Tian; Jennifer L Guida; Hela Koka; Er-Ni Li; Bin Zhu; Hyuna Sung; Ariane Chan; Han Zhang; Eric Tang; Changyuan Guo; Joseph Deng; Nan Hu; Ning Lu; Gretchen L Gierach; Jing Li; Xiaohong R Yang Journal: JNCI Cancer Spectr Date: 2020-10-13
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: Neb Duric; Mark Sak; Shaoqi Fan; Ruth M Pfeiffer; Peter J Littrup; Michael S Simon; David H Gorski; Haythem Ali; Kristen S Purrington; Rachel F Brem; Mark E Sherman; Gretchen L Gierach Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2020-01-29 Impact factor: 4.241
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
Authors: Ida Skarping; Daniel Förnvik; Uffe Heide-Jørgensen; Hanna Sartor; Per Hall; Sophia Zackrisson; Signe Borgquist Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2020-12-30 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Xuan Huang; Gina Reye; Konstantin I Momot; Tony Blick; Thomas Lloyd; Wayne D Tilley; Theresa E Hickey; Cameron E Snell; Rachel K Okolicsanyi; Larisa M Haupt; Vito Ferro; Erik W Thompson; Honor J Hugo Journal: Front Cell Dev Biol Date: 2020-07-14