Margherita Pizzato1, Greta Carioli2, Stefano Rosso3, Roberto Zanetti3,4, Carlo La Vecchia1. 1. Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, University of Milan, Via Celoria 22, 20133, Milan, Italy. 2. Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, University of Milan, Via Celoria 22, 20133, Milan, Italy. greta.carioli@gmail.com. 3. Piedmont Cancer Registry, A.O.U, Citta` della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, Turin, Italy. 4. Fondo Elena Moroni for Oncology, Turin, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We explored the under-debate association between mammographic breast density (MBD) and survival. METHODS: From the Piedmont Cancer Registry, we identified 693 invasive breast cancer (BC) cases. We analyzed the overall survival in strata of MBD through the Kaplan-Meier method. Using the Cox proportional hazards model, we estimated the hazard ratios (HRs) of death; using the cause-specific hazards regression model, we estimated the HRs of BC-related and other causes of death. Models included term for Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) MBD (categorized as BI-RADS 1 and BI-RADS 2-4) and were adjusted for selected patient and tumour characteristics. RESULTS: There were 102 deaths, of which 49 were from BC. After 5 years, the overall survival was 69% in BI-RADS 1 and 88% in BI-RADS 2-4 (p < 0.01). Compared to BI-RADS 2-4, the HRs of death for BI-RADS 1 were 1.65 (95% CI 1.06-2.58) in the crude model and 1.35 (95% CI 0.84-2.16) in the fully adjusted model. Compared to BI-RADS 2-4, the fully adjusted HRs for BI-RADS 1 were 1.52 (95% CI 0.74-3.13) for BC-related death and 1.83 (95% CI 0.84-4.00) for the other causes of death. CONCLUSION: Higher MBD is one of the strongest independent risk factors for BC, but it seems not to have an unfavorable impact on survival.
PURPOSE: We explored the under-debate association between mammographic breast density (MBD) and survival. METHODS: From the Piedmont Cancer Registry, we identified 693 invasive breast cancer (BC) cases. We analyzed the overall survival in strata of MBD through the Kaplan-Meier method. Using the Cox proportional hazards model, we estimated the hazard ratios (HRs) of death; using the cause-specific hazards regression model, we estimated the HRs of BC-related and other causes of death. Models included term for Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) MBD (categorized as BI-RADS 1 and BI-RADS 2-4) and were adjusted for selected patient and tumour characteristics. RESULTS: There were 102 deaths, of which 49 were from BC. After 5 years, the overall survival was 69% in BI-RADS 1 and 88% in BI-RADS 2-4 (p < 0.01). Compared to BI-RADS 2-4, the HRs of death for BI-RADS 1 were 1.65 (95% CI 1.06-2.58) in the crude model and 1.35 (95% CI 0.84-2.16) in the fully adjusted model. Compared to BI-RADS 2-4, the fully adjusted HRs for BI-RADS 1 were 1.52 (95% CI 0.74-3.13) for BC-related death and 1.83 (95% CI 0.84-4.00) for the other causes of death. CONCLUSION: Higher MBD is one of the strongest independent risk factors for BC, but it seems not to have an unfavorable impact on survival.
Authors: Michael S Shawky; Cecilia W Huo; Kara Britt; Erik W Thompson; Michael A Henderson; Andrew Redfern Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2019-06-08 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Norman F Boyd; Johanna M Rommens; Kelly Vogt; Vivian Lee; John L Hopper; Martin J Yaffe; Andrew D Paterson Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Gretchen L Gierach; Laura Ichikawa; Karla Kerlikowske; Louise A Brinton; Ghada N Farhat; Pamela M Vacek; Donald L Weaver; Catherine Schairer; Stephen H Taplin; Mark E Sherman Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2012-08-21 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Mitch Dowsett; Torsten O Nielsen; Roger A'Hern; John Bartlett; R Charles Coombes; Jack Cuzick; Matthew Ellis; N Lynn Henry; Judith C Hugh; Tracy Lively; Lisa McShane; Soon Paik; Frederique Penault-Llorca; Ljudmila Prudkin; Meredith Regan; Janine Salter; Christos Sotiriou; Ian E Smith; Giuseppe Viale; Jo Anne Zujewski; Daniel F Hayes Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2011-09-29 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: M Elizabeth H Hammond; Daniel F Hayes; Mitch Dowsett; D Craig Allred; Karen L Hagerty; Sunil Badve; Patrick L Fitzgibbons; Glenn Francis; Neil S Goldstein; Malcolm Hayes; David G Hicks; Susan Lester; Richard Love; Pamela B Mangu; Lisa McShane; Keith Miller; C Kent Osborne; Soonmyung Paik; Jane Perlmutter; Anthony Rhodes; Hironobu Sasano; Jared N Schwartz; Fred C G Sweep; Sheila Taube; Emina Emilia Torlakovic; Paul Valenstein; Giuseppe Viale; Daniel Visscher; Thomas Wheeler; R Bruce Williams; James L Wittliff; Antonio C Wolff Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-04-19 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Antonio C Wolff; M Elizabeth Hale Hammond; Kimberly H Allison; Brittany E Harvey; Pamela B Mangu; John M S Bartlett; Michael Bilous; Ian O Ellis; Patrick Fitzgibbons; Wedad Hanna; Robert B Jenkins; Michael F Press; Patricia A Spears; Gail H Vance; Giuseppe Viale; Lisa M McShane; Mitchell Dowsett Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2018-05-30 Impact factor: 5.686
Authors: A Goldhirsch; E P Winer; A S Coates; R D Gelber; M Piccart-Gebhart; B Thürlimann; H-J Senn Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2013-08-04 Impact factor: 32.976