Literature DB >> 31177342

A review of the influence of mammographic density on breast cancer clinical and pathological phenotype.

Michael S Shawky1,2, Cecilia W Huo3, Kara Britt4,5, Erik W Thompson6,7,8, Michael A Henderson3,5, Andrew Redfern9.   

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.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast cancer; Breast cancer pathology; Mammographic density; Oestrogen receptor

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31177342     DOI: 10.1007/s10549-019-05300-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat        ISSN: 0167-6806            Impact factor:   4.872


  136 in total

1.  Odds per adjusted standard deviation: comparing strengths of associations for risk factors measured on different scales and across diseases and populations.

Authors:  John L Hopper
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2015-10-31       Impact factor: 4.897

2.  Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer.

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

3.  Percent Mammographic Density and Dense Area as Risk Factors for Breast Cancer.

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

4.  Current and Future Methods for Measuring Breast Density: A Brief Comparative Review.

Authors:  Mark A Sak; Peter J Littrup; Neb Duric; Maeve Mullooly; Mark E Sherman; Gretchen L Gierach
Journal:  Breast Cancer Manag       Date:  2015-08-28

5.  Breast cancer mammography patterns.

Authors:  R L Egan; R C Mosteller
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1977-11       Impact factor: 6.860

6.  Risk for breast cancer development determined by mammographic parenchymal pattern.

Authors:  J N Wolfe
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1976-05       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 7.  Breast cancer.

Authors:  Umberto Veronesi; Peter Boyle; Aron Goldhirsch; Roberto Orecchia; Giuseppe Viale
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2005 May 14-20       Impact factor: 79.321

8.  Independent association of lobular involution and mammographic breast density with breast cancer risk.

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

9.  Mammographic density and breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.

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

10.  Mammographic density and risk of breast cancer by mode of detection and tumor size: a case-control study.

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

View more
  9 in total

1.  Stiff stroma increases breast cancer risk by inducing the oncogene ZNF217.

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

2.  Quantitative Mammographic Density Measurements and Molecular Subtypes in Chinese Women With Breast Cancer.

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

3.  Mammographic breast density and survival in women with invasive breast cancer.

Authors:  Margherita Pizzato; Greta Carioli; Stefano Rosso; Roberto Zanetti; Carlo La Vecchia
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2022-06-13       Impact factor: 2.532

4.  Using Whole Breast Ultrasound Tomography to Improve Breast Cancer Risk Assessment: A Novel Risk Factor Based on the Quantitative Tissue Property of Sound Speed.

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

5.  Tumor microenvironment and breast cancer survival: combined effects of breast fat, M2 macrophages and hyaluronan create a dismal prognosis.

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

6.  Mammographic density as an image-based biomarker of therapy response in neoadjuvant-treated breast cancer patients.

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

7.  Heparanase Promotes Syndecan-1 Expression to Mediate Fibrillar Collagen and Mammographic Density in Human Breast Tissue Cultured ex vivo.

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

8.  Prediagnostic circulating metabolites in female breast cancer cases with low and high mammographic breast density.

Authors:  Benedetta Bendinelli; Alessia Vignoli; Domenico Palli; Melania Assedi; Daniela Ambrogetti; Claudio Luchinat; Saverio Caini; Calogero Saieva; Paola Turano; Giovanna Masala
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-06-22       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  The prognostic relevance of p53 and Ki-67 to chemotherapy sensitivity and prognosis in triple-negative breast cancer.

Authors:  Guojing Zhang; Zhongyi Shi; Lina Liu; Heqing Yuan; Zheng Pan; Wenxu Li; Yu Tao; Zhaoming Huang; Xiaoying Huang; Chao Lin
Journal:  Transl Cancer Res       Date:  2021-02       Impact factor: 1.241

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.