Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Tissue composition of mammographically dense and non-dense breast tissue

  • Epidemiology
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Mammographic density is a strong risk factor for breast cancer but its underlying biology in healthy women is not well-defined. Using a novel collection of core biopsies from mammographically dense versus non-dense regions of the breasts of healthy women, we examined histologic and molecular differences between these two tissue types. Eligible participants were 40 + years, had a screening mammogram and no prior breast cancer or current endocrine therapy. Mammograms were used to identify dense and non-dense regions and ultrasound-guided core biopsies were performed to obtain tissue from these regions. Quantitative assessment of epithelium, stroma, and fat was performed on dense and non-dense cores. Molecular markers including Ki-67, estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) were also assessed for participants who had >0% epithelial area in both dense and non-dense tissue. Signed rank test was used to assess within woman differences in epithelium, stroma and fat between dense and non-dense tissue. Differences in molecular markers (Ki-67, ER, and PR) were analyzed using generalized linear models, adjusting for total epithelial area. Fifty-nine women, mean age 51 years (range: 40–82), were eligible for analyses. Dense tissue was comprised of greater mean areas of epithelium and stroma (1.1 and 9.2 mm2 more, respectively) but less fat (6.0 mm2 less) than non-dense tissue. There were no statistically significant differences in relative expression of Ki-67 (P = 0.82), ER (P = 0.09), or PR (P = 0.96) between dense and non-dense tissue. Consistent with prior reports, we found that mammographically dense areas of the breast differ histologically from non-dense areas, reflected in greater proportions of epithelium and stroma and lesser proportions of fat in the dense compared to non-dense breast tissue. Studies of both epithelial and stromal components are important in understanding the association between mammographic density and breast cancer risk.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cummings SR, Tice JA, Bauer S, Browner WS, Cuzick J, Ziv E, Vogel V, Shepherd J, Vachon C, Smith-Bindman R et al (2009) Prevention of breast cancer in postmenopausal women: approaches to estimating and reducing risk. J Natl Cancer Inst 101:384–398

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 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 16:43–49

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Boyd NF, Martin LJ, Bronskill M, Yaffe MJ, Duric N, Minkin S (2010) Breast tissue composition and susceptibility to breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 102:1224–1237

    Google Scholar 

  4. McCormack VA, dos Santos Silva I (2006) Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 6:1159–1169

    Google Scholar 

  5. Boyd NF, Jensen HM, Cooke G, Han HL, Lockwood GA, Miller AB (2000) Mammographic densities and the prevalence and incidence of histological types of benign breast disease. Reference Pathologists of the Canadian National Breast Screening Study. Eur J Cancer Prev 1:15–24

    Google Scholar 

  6. Li T, Sun L, Miller N, Nicklee T, Woo J, Hulse-Smith L, Tsao MS, Khokha R, Martin L, Boyd N (2005) The association of measured breast tissue characteristics with mammographic density and other risk factors for breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 14:343–349

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hawes D, Downey S, Pearce CL, Bartow S, Wan P, Pike MC, Wu AH (2006) Dense breast stromal tissue shows greatly increased concentration of breast epithelium but no increase in its proliferative activity. Breast Cancer Res 8:R24

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Stomper PC, Penetrante RB, Edge SB, Arredondo MA, Blumenson LE, Stewart CC (1996) Cellular proliferative activity of mammographic normal dense and fatty tissue determined by DNA S phase percentage. Breast Cancer Res Treat 37:229–236

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Alowami S, Troup S, Al-Haddad S, Kirkpatrick I, Watson PH (2003) Mammographic density is related to stroma and stromal proteoglycan expression. Breast Cancer Res 5:R129–R135

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Bartow SA, Pathak DR, Mettler FA, Key CR, Pike MC (1995) Breast mammographic pattern: a concatenation of confounding and breast cancer risk factors. Am J Epidemiol 142:813–819

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Lin SJ, Cawson J, Hill P, Haviv I, Jenkins M, Hopper JL, Southey MC, Campbell IG, Thompson EW (2011) Image-guided sampling reveals increased stroma and lower glandular complexity in mammographically dense breast tissue. Breast Cancer Res Treat 128:505–516

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Boyd NF, Byng JW, Jong RA, Fishell EK, Little LE, Miller AB, Lockwood GA, Tritchler DL, Yaffe MJ (1995) Quantitative classification of mammographic densities and breast cancer risk: results from the Canadian national breast screening study. J Natl Cancer Inst 87:670–675

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Bright RA, Morrison AS, Brisson J, Burstein NA, Sadowsky NS, Kopans DB, Meyer JE (1988) Relationship between mammographic and histologic features of breast tissue in women with benign biopsies. Cancer 61:266–271

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Fisher ER, Palekar A, Kim WS, Redmond C (1978) The histopathology of mammographic patterns. Am J Clin Pathol 69:421–426

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Verheus M, Maskarinec G, Erber E, Steude JS, Killeen J, Hernandez BY, Cline JM (2009) Mammographic density and epithelial histopathologic markers. BMC Cancer 9:182

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Harvey JA, Santen RJ, Petroni GR, Bovbjerg VE, Smolkin ME, Sheriff FS, Russo J (2008) Histologic changes in the breast with menopausal hormone therapy use: correlation with breast density, estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and proliferation indices. Menopause 15:67–73

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Khan QJ, Kimler BF, O’Dea AP, Zalles CM, Sharma P, Fabian CJ (2007) Mammographic density does not correlate with Ki-67 expression or cytomorphology in benign breast cells obtained by random periareolar fine needle aspiration from women at high risk for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 9:R35

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kerlikowske K, Cook AJ, Buist DS, Cummings SR, Vachon C, Vacek P, Miglioretti DL (2010) Breast cancer risk by breast density, menopause, and postmenopausal hormone therapy use. J Clin Oncol 28:3830–3837

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Vachon CM, Sellers TA, Vierkant RA, Wu FF, Brandt KR (2002) Case-control study of increased mammographic breast density response to hormone replacement therapy. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 11:1382–1388

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Greendale GA, Reboussin BA, Slone S, Wasilauskas C, Pike MC, Ursin G (2003) Postmenopausal hormone therapy and change in mammographic density. J Natl Cancer Inst 95:30–37

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Cuzick J, Forbes JF, Sestak I, Cawthorn S, Hamed H, Holli K, Howell A (2007) Long-term results of tamoxifen prophylaxis for breast cancer—96-month follow-up of the randomized IBIS-I trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 99:272–282

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Russo J (2004) Molecular basis of breast cancer prevention and treatment. Chapter 2. In: Russo J, Russo IH (eds) The breast as a developing organ. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 11–46

    Google Scholar 

  23. Garrity MM, Burgart LJ, Riehle DL, Hill EM, Sebo TJ, Witzig T (2003) Identifying and quantifying apoptosis: navigating technical pitfalls. Mod Pathol 16:389–394

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Milanese TR, Hartmann LC, Sellers TA, Frost MH, Vierkant RA, Maloney SD, Pankratz VS, Degnim AC, Vachon CM, Reynolds CA et al (2006) Age-related lobular involution and reduced risk of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 98:1600–1607

    Google Scholar 

  25. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL (1979) Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 86:420–428

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Lin LI (1989) A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics 45:255–268

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Lin L (2000) A note on the concordance correlation coefficient. Biometrics 56:324–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. King TS, Chinchilli VM (2001) A generalized concordance correlation coefficient for continuous and categorical data. Stat Med 20:2131–2147

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Dupont WD, Page DL (1985) Risk factors for breast cancer in women with proliferative breast disease. N Engl J Med 312:146–151

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Hartmann LC, Sellers TA, Frost MH, Lingle WL, Degnim AC, Ghosh K, Vierkant RA, Maloney SD, Pankratz VS, Hillman DW et al (2005) Benign breast disease and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 353:229–237

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Moe RH, Uhlig T, Kjeken I, Hagen KB, Kvien TK, Grotle M (2010) Multidisciplinary and multifaceted outpatient management of patients with osteoarthritis: protocol for a randomised, controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 11:253

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Chanques G, Viel E, Constantin JM, Jung B, de Lattre S, Carr J, Cisse M, Lefrant JY, Jaber S (2010) The measurement of pain in intensive care unit: comparison of 5 self-report intensity scales. Pain 151:711–721

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Gagliese L, Weizblit N, Ellis W, Chan VW (2005) The measurement of postoperative pain: a comparison of intensity scales in younger and older surgical patients. Pain 117:412–420

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Rosen S, Svensson M, Nilsson U (2008) Calm or not calm: the question of anxiety in the perianesthesia patient. J Perianesth Nurs 23:237–246

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Fisher B, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, Redmond CK, Kavanah M, Cronin WM, Vogel V, Robidoux A, Dimitrov N, Atkins J et al (1998) Tamoxifen for prevention of breast cancer: report of the National surgical adjuvant breast and bowel project P-1 study. J Natl Cancer Inst 90:1371–1388

    Google Scholar 

  36. Gail MH, Brinton LA, Byar DP, Corle DK, Green SB, Schairer C, Mulvihill JJ (1989) Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst 81:1879–1886

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. McCullagh P, Nelder JA (1989) Generalized linear models, 2nd edn. Chapman and Hall/CPC, New York

    Google Scholar 

  38. Zeger SL, Liang KY, Albert PS (1988) Models for longitudinal data: a generalized estimating equation approach. Biometrics 44:1049–1060

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Boyd NF, Jensen HM, Cooke G, Han HL (1992) Relationship between mammographic and histological risk factors for breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 84:1170–1179

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Bland KI, Kuhns JG, Buchanan JB, Dwyer PA, Heuser LF, O’Connor CA, Gray LA Sr, Polk HC Jr (1982) A clinicopathologic correlation of mammographic parenchymal patterns and associated risk factors for human mammary carcinoma. Ann Surg 195:582–594

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Urbanski S, Jensen HM, Cooke G, McFarlane D, Shannon P, Kruikov V, Boyd NF (1988) The association of histological and radiological indicators of breast cancer risk. Br J Cancer 58:474–479

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Moskowitz M, Gartside P, McLaughlin C (1980) Mammographic patterns as markers for high-risk benign breast disease and incident cancers. Radiology 134:293–295

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Arthur JE, Ellis IO, Flowers C, Roebuck E, Elston CW, Blamey RW (1990) The relationship of ‘‘high risk’’ mammographic patterns to histological risk factors for development of cancer in the human breast. Br J Radiol 63:845–849

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Bartow SA, Pathak DR, Mettler FA (1990) Radiographic microcalcification and parenchymal patterns as indicators of histologic “high-risk” benign breast disease. Cancer 66:1721–1725

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Ghosh K, Hartmann LC, Reynolds C, Visscher DW, Brandt KR, Vierkant RA, Scott CG, Radisky DC, Sellers TA, Pankratz VS et al (2010) Association between mammographic density and age-related lobular involution of the breast. J Clin Oncol 28:2207–2212

    Google Scholar 

  46. Vierkant RA, Hartmann LC, Pankratz VS, Anderson SS, Radisky D, Frost MH, Vachon CM, Ghosh K, Distad TJ, Degnim AC et al (2009) Lobular involution: localized phenomenon or field effect? Breast Cancer Res Treat 117:193–196

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are very grateful to the volunteers who participated in this study. We acknowledge the efforts of the study coordinators (Jenny Mentlick, Shannin Renn), members of the Mayo BAP and TACMA labs (especially Karla Kopp and Lorna Lubinski), the Breast Imaging Unit, Department of Radiology, and the Clinical Research Unit. This study was supported by the National Institute of Health (NIH) [Grant numbers K12 RR24151; Mayo Clinic Breast SPORE; NCI P50 CA116201; NCI R01 CA128931; NCI R01 CA140286] and Mayo Clinic Cancer Center.

Conflict of interest

None declared.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Charlton 6-239, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA

    Karthik Ghosh

  2. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Charlton 6-239, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA

    Kathleen R. Brandt

  3. Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Charlton 6-239, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA

    Carol Reynolds, Darren L. Riehle, Wilma L. Lingle & Daniel W. Visscher

  4. Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Charlton 6-239, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA

    Christopher G. Scott, V. S. Pankratz, Tonye Odogwu & Celine M. Vachon

  5. Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA

    Derek C. Radisky

  6. Department of Oncology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Charlton 6-239, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA

    James N. Ingle & Lynn C. Hartmann

Authors
  1. Karthik Ghosh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kathleen R. Brandt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Carol Reynolds
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christopher G. Scott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. V. S. Pankratz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Darren L. Riehle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Wilma L. Lingle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Tonye Odogwu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Derek C. Radisky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Daniel W. Visscher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. James N. Ingle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Lynn C. Hartmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Celine M. Vachon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Celine M. Vachon.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ghosh, K., Brandt, K.R., Reynolds, C. et al. Tissue composition of mammographically dense and non-dense breast tissue. Breast Cancer Res Treat 131, 267–275 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-011-1727-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-011-1727-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation