Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 124, Issue 2, pp 551–554 | Cite as

Predicting breast cancer risk using mammographic density measurements from both mammogram sides and views

  • Jennifer Stone
  • Jane Ding
  • Ruth M. L. Warren
  • Stephen W. Duffy
Brief Report


Mammographic density is a strong risk factor for breast cancer. Which and how many x-rays are used for research, and how mammographic density is measured varies across studies. In this article, we compared three different measurements (absolute dense area, percent dense area and percent dense volume) from each of four mammograms [left, right, medio-lateral oblique (MLO) and cranio-caudal (CC) views] using three different methods of measurement [computer-assisted thresholding, visual assessment and standard mammogram form (SMF)] to investigate whether additional measurements and/or different methods of measurement provide more information in the prediction of breast cancer risk. Mammographic density was measured in all four mammograms from 318 cases and 899 age-matched controls combined from the Cambridge and Norwich Breast Screening Programmes. Measurements were averaged across various combinations of mammogram type and/or view. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios associated with increasing quintiles of each mammographic measure. Overall, there appeared to be no difference in the fit of the models using two or four mammograms compared to the models using just the contralateral MLO or CC mammogram (all P > 0.07) for all methods of measurement. Common practice of measuring just the contralateral MLO or CC mammogram for analysis in case–control studies investigating the association between mammographic density and breast cancer risk appears to be sufficient.


Mammographic density Breast cancer Risk factor Measurement 


Conflict of interest Statement



  1. 1.
    Yaffe M, Boyd N (2005) Mammographic breast density and cancer risk: the radiological view. Gynecol Endocrinol 21(Suppl 1):6–11CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boyd NF, Rommens JM, Vogt K, Lee V, Hopper JL, Yaffe MJ, Paterson AD (2005) Mammographic breast density as an intermediate phenotype for breast cancer. Lancet Oncol 6(10):798–808CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ding J, Warren R, Warsi I, Day N, Thompson D, Brady M, Tromans C, Highnam R, Easton D (2008) Evaluating the effectiveness of using standard mammogram form to predict breast cancer risk: case-control study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 17(5):1074–1081CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vachon CM, Brandt KR, Ghosh K, Scott CG, Maloney SD, Carston MJ, Pankratz VS, Sellers TA (2007) Mammographic breast density as a general marker of breast cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 16(1):43–49CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Duffy SW, Nagtegaal ID, Astley SM, Gillan MG, McGee MA, Boggis CR, Wilson M, Beetles UM, Griffiths MA, Jain AK, Johnson J, Roberts R, Deans H, Duncan KA, Iyengar G, Griffiths PM, Warwick J, Cuzick J, Gilbert FJ (2008) Visually assessed breast density, breast cancer risk and the importance of the craniocaudal view. Breast Cancer Res 10(4):R64CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jennifer Stone
    • 1
  • Jane Ding
    • 2
  • Ruth M. L. Warren
    • 3
  • Stephen W. Duffy
    • 4
  1. 1.Centre for Molecular, Environmental, Genetic and Analytical (MEGA) Epidemiology, The University of Melbourne, School of Population HealthVictoriaAustralia
  2. 2.Oxford University, Green-Templeton CollegeOxfordUK
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyAddenbrooke’s HospitalCambridgeUK
  4. 4.Cancer Research UK, Department of Epidemiology, Mathematics and Statistics, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and The London, Queen Mary School of Medicine, University of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations