Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 63, Issue 2, pp 153–161 | Cite as

A case-control study of mammographic densities in Hawaii

  • Gertraud Maskarinec
  • Lixin Meng


Epidemiologic evidence suggests that mammographic densities are markers of breast cancer risk. This project investigated the relation between breast cancer and densities in women of Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, Native Hawaiian, and Caucasian ancestry. Mammograms from breast cancer cases and from healthy controls were compared using a computer-assisted method of mammographic density assessment. From 1991 to 1997, 935 cases of breast cancer were diagnosed at Kaiser Permanente in Hawaii; for 647 (69%) subjects, a control woman matched by ethnicity, year of mammogram, and age was identified. Conditional multiple logistic regression was applied to estimate the relative risk of developing breast cancer. Breast cancer risk was associated with percent densities and with the size of the dense areas. Women in the category with the most densities experienced a twofold risk of developing breast cancer as compared to women with the least densities. Adjustment for risk factors reduced the strength of the association. Odds ratios were of similar magnitude in Asian women as in Caucasian/Native Hawaiian women, but they were not statistically significant. The results of this study indicate that the associations of breast cancer risk with the magnitude of the dense areas and with the percent densities are of similar strength in women of different ethnicities although density levels vary by ethnicity.

breast neoplasm case-control study ethnicity mammographic density risk factors 


  1. 1.
    Miller BA, Kolonel LN, Bernstein L, et al. Racial/ethnic patterns of cancer in the United States 1988–1992. National Cancer Institute. NIH Pub. No. 96-4104. Bethesda, MDGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boyd NF, Byng JW, Jong RA, et al.: Quantitative classification of mammographic densities and breast cancer risk: results from the Canadian National Breast Screening Study. J Natl Cancer Inst 87: 670–675, 1995Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Byrne C, Schairer C, Wolfe J, et al.: Mammographic features and breast cancer risk: effects with time, age, and menopause status. J Natl Cancer Inst 87: 1622–1629, 1995Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boyd NF, Lockwood GA, Byng JW, Tritchler DL, Yaffe MJ: Mammographic densities and breast cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol, Biomarkers Prev 7: 1133–1144, 1998Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Byng JW, Boyd NF, Fishell E, Jong RA, Yaffe MJ: The quantitative analysis of mammographic densities. Phys Med Biol 39: 1629–1638, 1994Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wolfe JN: Risk for breast cancer development determined by mammographic parenchymal pattern. Cancer 37: 2486–2492, 1976Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Oza AM, Boyd NF: Mammographic parenchymal patterns: a marker of breast cancer risk. Epidemiol Rev 15: 196–207, 1993Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ursin G, Astrahan MA, Salane M, et al.: The detection of changes in mammographic densities. Cancer Epidemiol, Biomarkers Prev 7: 43–47, 1998Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kojima O, Majima T, Uehara Y, et al.: Radiographic parenchymal patterns in Japanese females as a risk factor for breast carcinoma. World J Surg 8: 414–418, 1984Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hawaii Department of Business ED and T: State of Hawaii data book 1997: a statistical abstract. State of Hawaii, Honolulu, 1998Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hawaii Medical Service Association Foundation: Health Trends in Hawaii. 3rd edn, HMSA, Honolulu, 1997Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hawaii Department of Health: Hawaii's health risk behaviors, 1993. DOH. Health Promotion and Education Branch, Honolulu, HI, 1995Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    D'Orsi CJ, Kopan DB: Mammographic feature analysis. Semin Roentgenol 28: 204–230, 1993Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Snedecor GW, Cochran WG: Statistical methods. 6th edn, The Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, 1967Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Breslow NE, Day NE: Statistical methods in cancer research. Vol I. The design and analysis of case-control studies. International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, 1980Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Saftlas AF, Hoover RN, Brinton LA, et al.: Mammographic densities and risk of breast cancer. Cancer 67: 2833–2838, 1991Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brisson J: Family history of breast cancer, mammographic features of breast tissue, and breast cancer risk. Epidemiology 2: 440–444, 1991Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sala E, Warren R, McCann J, Duffy S, Luben R, Day N: Highrisk mammographic parenchymal patterns and anthropometric measures: a case-control study. Br J Cancer 81: 1257–1261, 1999Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Henderson BE, Pike MC, Bernstein L, Ross RK: Breast cancer. In: Schottenfeld D, Fraumeni JFJ (eds) Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention. 2nd edn, Oxford University Press, New York, 1996: 1022–1039Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gravelle IH, Bulbrook RD, Wang DY, et al.: A comparison of mammographic parenchymal patterns in premenopausal Japanese and British women. Breast Cancer Res Treat 18: S93–S95,1991.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Grove JS, Goodman MJ, Gilbert F, Clyde D: Factors associated with breast structure in breast cancer patients. Cancer 43: 1895–1899, 1979Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Grove JS, Goodman MJ, Gilbert FI, Mi MP: Factors associated with mammographic pattern. Br J Radiol 58: 21–25, 1985Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Thurfjell E, Hsieh CC, Lipworth L, Ekbom A, Adami HO, Trichopoulos D: Breast size and mammographic pattern in relation to breast cancer risk. Eur J Cancer Prev 5: 37–41, 1996Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gertraud Maskarinec
  • Lixin Meng

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations