PURPOSE: To measure changes and predictors of change in mammograms obtained in postmenopausal women undergoingcontinuous combined hormonal replacement therapy (HRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Mammograms of 41 postmenopausal women obtained before and 1 year after the initiation of HRT were evaluated blindly according to the quantitative density percentage method and the Wolfe classification system. RESULTS:Mammographic densities increased compared with baseline values in 73% of subjects (mean increase, 6.7%; 95% confidence interval, 2.5%, 11.0%; P = .003). A shift in Wolfe classification from lower to greater parenchymal density was noted in 24% of subjects (P = .016). Multivariate analysis results indicated that the lower the tissue density percentage before treatment, the greater the increase in density percentage after treatment. CONCLUSION: An increase in mammographic density was demonstrated in most subjects undergoing continuous combined HRT and was most pronounced in subjects with a lower baseline density percentage.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To measure changes and predictors of change in mammograms obtained in postmenopausal women undergoing continuous combined hormonal replacement therapy (HRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Mammograms of 41 postmenopausal women obtained before and 1 year after the initiation of HRT were evaluated blindly according to the quantitative density percentage method and the Wolfe classification system. RESULTS: Mammographic densities increased compared with baseline values in 73% of subjects (mean increase, 6.7%; 95% confidence interval, 2.5%, 11.0%; P = .003). A shift in Wolfe classification from lower to greater parenchymal density was noted in 24% of subjects (P = .016). Multivariate analysis results indicated that the lower the tissue density percentage before treatment, the greater the increase in density percentage after treatment. CONCLUSION: An increase in mammographic density was demonstrated in most subjects undergoing continuous combined HRT and was most pronounced in subjects with a lower baseline density percentage.
Authors: P A Carney; M E Goodrich; D M O'Mahony; A N Tosteson; M S Eliassen; S P Poplack; S Birnbaum; B G Harwood; K A Burgess; B T Berube; W S Wells; J P Ball; M M Stevens Journal: J Community Health Date: 2000-06
Authors: Mary Beth Terry; Diana S M Buist; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Tamarra M James-Todd; Yuyan Liao Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Katherine Tossas-Milligan; Sundus Shalabi; Veronica Jones; Patricia J Keely; Matthew W Conklin; Kevin W Elicerie; Robert Winn; Christopher Sistrunk; Joseph Geradts; Gustavo Miranda-Carboni; Eric C Dietze; Lisa D Yee; Victoria L Seewaldt Journal: Curr Breast Cancer Rep Date: 2019-07-24
Authors: Celia Byrne; Giske Ursin; Christopher F Martin; Jennifer D Peck; Elodia B Cole; Donglin Zeng; Eunhee Kim; Martin D Yaffe; Norman F Boyd; Gerardo Heiss; Anne McTiernan; Rowan T Chlebowski; Dorothy S Lane; JoAnn E Manson; Jean Wactawski-Wende; Etta D Pisano Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Parisa Tehranifar; Diane Reynolds; Julie Flom; Loralee Fulton; Yuyan Liao; Elizabeth Kudadjie-Gyamfi; Mary Beth Terry Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2011-02-17 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Diana S M Buist; Melissa L Anderson; Susan D Reed; Erin J Aiello Bowles; E Dawn Fitzgibbons; Juleann C Gandara; Deborah Seger; Katherine M Newton Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2009-06-02 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Celine M Vachon; Jingmei Li; Christopher G Scott; Per Hall; Kamila Czene; Xianshu Wang; Jianjun Liu; Zachary S Fredericksen; David N Rider; Fang-Fang Wu; Janet E Olson; Julie M Cunningham; Kristen N Stevens; Thomas A Sellers; Shane V Pankratz; Fergus J Couch Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2012-01-07 Impact factor: 6.466