BACKGROUND: We examined the association between annual mammographic density change (MDC) and breast cancer (BC) risk, and how annual MDC influences the association between baseline mammographic density (MD) and BC risk. METHODS: We used the Karolinska Mammography Project for Risk Prediction of Breast Cancer cohort of Swedish women (N = 43 810) aged 30-79 years with full access to BC risk factors and mammograms. MD was measured as dense area (cm2) and percent MD using the STRATUS method. We used the contralateral mammogram for women with BC and randomly selected a mammogram from either left or right breast for healthy women. We calculated relative area MDC between repeated examinations. Relative area MDC was categorized as decreased (>10% decrease per year), stable (no change), or increased (>10% increase per year). We used Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate the association of BC with MDC and interaction analysis to investigate how MDC modified the association between baseline MD and BC risk. All tests of statistical significance were two-sided. RESULTS: In all, 563 women were diagnosed with BC. Compared with women with a decreased MD over time, no statistically significant difference in BC risk was seen for women with either stable MD or increasing MD (hazard ratio = 1.01, 95% confidence interval = 0.82 to 1.23, P = .90; and hazard ratio = 0.98, 95% confidence interval = 0.80 to 1.22, P = .90, respectively). Categorizing baseline MD and subsequently adding MDC did not seem to influence the association between baseline MD and BC risk. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that annual MDC does not influence BC risk. Furthermore, MDC does not seem to influence the association between baseline MD and BC risk.
BACKGROUND: We examined the association between annual mammographic density change (MDC) and breast cancer (BC) risk, and how annual MDC influences the association between baseline mammographic density (MD) and BC risk. METHODS: We used the Karolinska Mammography Project for Risk Prediction of Breast Cancer cohort of Swedish women (N = 43 810) aged 30-79 years with full access to BC risk factors and mammograms. MD was measured as dense area (cm2) and percent MD using the STRATUS method. We used the contralateral mammogram for women with BC and randomly selected a mammogram from either left or right breast for healthy women. We calculated relative area MDC between repeated examinations. Relative area MDC was categorized as decreased (>10% decrease per year), stable (no change), or increased (>10% increase per year). We used Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate the association of BC with MDC and interaction analysis to investigate how MDC modified the association between baseline MD and BC risk. All tests of statistical significance were two-sided. RESULTS: In all, 563 women were diagnosed with BC. Compared with women with a decreased MD over time, no statistically significant difference in BC risk was seen for women with either stable MD or increasing MD (hazard ratio = 1.01, 95% confidence interval = 0.82 to 1.23, P = .90; and hazard ratio = 0.98, 95% confidence interval = 0.80 to 1.22, P = .90, respectively). Categorizing baseline MD and subsequently adding MDC did not seem to influence the association between baseline MD and BC risk. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that annual MDC does not influence BC risk. Furthermore, MDC does not seem to influence the association between baseline MD and BC risk.
Authors: P A van den Brandt; D Spiegelman; S S Yaun; H O Adami; L Beeson; A R Folsom; G Fraser; R A Goldbohm; S Graham; L Kushi; J R Marshall; A B Miller; T Rohan; S A Smith-Warner; F E Speizer; W C Willett; A Wolk; D J Hunter Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2000-09-15 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Norman Boyd; Lisa Martin; Jennifer Stone; Laurie Little; Salomon Minkin; Martin Yaffe Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Norman F Boyd; Lisa J Martin; Michael Bronskill; Martin J Yaffe; Neb Duric; Salomon Minkin Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2010-07-08 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Gertraud Maskarinec; Ian Pagano; Galina Lurie; Laurence N Kolonel Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Mariëtte Lokate; Rebecca K Stellato; Wouter B Veldhuis; Petra H M Peeters; Carla H van Gils Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2013-05-22 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Karla Kerlikowske; Laura Ichikawa; Diana L Miglioretti; Diana S M Buist; Pamela M Vacek; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Bonnie Yankaskas; Patricia A Carney; Rachel Ballard-Barbash Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2007-03-07 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Stephen W Duffy; Oliver W E Morrish; Prue C Allgood; Richard Black; Maureen G C Gillan; Paula Willsher; Julie Cooke; Karen A Duncan; Michael J Michell; Hilary M Dobson; Roberta Maroni; Yit Y Lim; Hema N Purushothaman; Tamara Suaris; Susan M Astley; Kenneth C Young; Lorraine Tucker; Fiona J Gilbert Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2017-11-27 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Shadi Azam; Mikael Eriksson; Arvid Sjölander; Marike Gabrielson; Roxanna Hellgren; Kamila Czene; Per Hall Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2020-09-25 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Roxanna Hellgren; Ariel Saracco; Fredrik Strand; Mikael Eriksson; Ann Sundbom; Per Hall; Paul W Dickman Journal: Acta Radiol Date: 2020-03-26 Impact factor: 1.990
Authors: Pui San Tan; Maya Alsheh Ali; Mikael Eriksson; Per Hall; Keith Humphreys; Kamila Czene Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2020-10-06 Impact factor: 7.396