Literature DB >> 8911192

Analysis of parenchymal density on mammograms in 1353 women 25-79 years old.

P C Stomper1, D J D'Souza, P A DiNitto, M A Arredondo.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to determine the frequency and distribution of dense mammograms. Factors that may affect parenchymal density of breasts among the diverse age groups of women who undergo mammography were also studied.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Mammograms of 1353 women between 25 and 79 years old who were grouped in 5-year age cohorts were reviewed. Breast density and the presence of benign calcifications were analyzed.
RESULTS: Parenchymal density on mammograms decreased progressively in the patient cohorts 25-29 years old through 75-79 years old (Spearman correlation, p < .01). In the cohort of 25- through 29-year-old patients, 38% had predominantly (> 50%) fatty breasts. In the cohort of 75- through 79-year-old patients, 76% had predominantly fatty breasts. Increased parenchymal density mammograms were more common in women who had smaller breasts, had had fewer than two pregnancies, and underwent hormone replacement (p < .01). Forty-nine percent of women 50-79 years old undergoing hormone replacement had predominantly dense breasts, a percentage similar to that (48%) of the patient cohort of women 40-44 years old. Prevalence of benign calcifications also increased with age, from 8% at ages 25-29 to 86% at ages 75-79 (p < .01).
CONCLUSION: In our study, a significant percentage (38%) of women who were 25-39 years old had predominantly fatty breast tissue that should not impede selective mammographic screening or diagnostic efforts in this age group.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8911192     DOI: 10.2214/ajr.167.5.8911192

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  41 in total

1.  Three-dimensional microwave imaging of realistic numerical breast phantoms via a multiple-frequency inverse scattering technique.

Authors:  Jacob D Shea; Panagiotis Kosmas; Susan C Hagness; Barry D Van Veen
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Classification of breast computed tomography data.

Authors:  Thomas R Nelson; Laura I Cerviño; John M Boone; Karen K Lindfors
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Mammographic determination of breast volume by elliptical cone estimation.

Authors:  James T K Fung; Sharon W W Chan; Annie N K Chiu; Polly S Y Cheung; S H Lam
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 3.352

4.  Awareness of breast density and its impact on breast cancer detection and risk.

Authors:  Deborah J Rhodes; Carmen Radecki Breitkopf; Jeanette Y Ziegenfuss; Sarah M Jenkins; Celine M Vachon
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-03-02       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Use of a handheld terahertz pulsed imaging device to differentiate benign and malignant breast tissue.

Authors:  Maarten R Grootendorst; Anthony J Fitzgerald; Susan G Brouwer de Koning; Aida Santaolalla; Alessia Portieri; Mieke Van Hemelrijck; Matthew R Young; Julie Owen; Massi Cariati; Michael Pepper; Vincent P Wallace; Sarah E Pinder; Arnie Purushotham
Journal:  Biomed Opt Express       Date:  2017-05-09       Impact factor: 3.732

Review 6.  Ultrasound Imaging Technologies for Breast Cancer Detection and Management: A Review.

Authors:  Rongrong Guo; Guolan Lu; Binjie Qin; Baowei Fei
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2017-10-26       Impact factor: 2.998

Review 7.  Postmenopausal hormone replacement therapy: effects on normal mammary gland in humans and in a mouse postmenopausal model.

Authors:  Sandra Z Haslam; Janet R Osuch; A M Raafat; L J Hofseth
Journal:  J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 2.673

8.  Earlier detection of breast cancer with ultrasound molecular imaging in a transgenic mouse model.

Authors:  Sunitha V Bachawal; Kristin C Jensen; Amelie M Lutz; Sanjiv S Gambhir; Francois Tranquart; Lu Tian; Jürgen K Willmann
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2013-01-17       Impact factor: 12.701

9.  Correlation between breast density in mammography and background enhancement in MR mammography.

Authors:  R Cubuk; N Tasali; B Narin; F Keskiner; L Celik; S Guney
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2010-01-15       Impact factor: 3.469

10.  Reported mammographic density: film-screen versus digital acquisition.

Authors:  Jennifer A Harvey; Charlotte C Gard; Diana L Miglioretti; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana S M Buist; Berta A Geller; Tracy L Onega
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-12-18       Impact factor: 11.105

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.