Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Breast density in relation to risk of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast in women undergoing screening mammography

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Cancer Causes & Control Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To examine the association between breast density and risk of breast ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).

Methods

We assessed breast density in relation to DCIS risk using combined data from statewide mammography registries in NH and VT. The prospective analyses were based on 572 DCIS cases arising in 154,936 women (58,496 premenopausal and 96,440 postmenopausal). Women in the study were followed on average 4.1 years. Breast density was scored by community radiologists using BIRADS categories (fatty, scattered density, heterogeneous density, extreme density).

Results

In premenopausal women, based on 157 cases, the RR for DCIS risk were 0.29 (95% CI: 0.0.04, 2.24) for fatty breasts, 2.06 (95% CI: 1.39, 3.05) for heterogeneous density, and 2.40 (95% CI: 1.47, 3.91) for extreme density, relative to scattered density. In postmenopausal women, based on 369 cases, the RR for DCIS risk were 0.58 (95% CI: 0.37, 0.93) for fatty breasts, 1.41 (95% CI: 1.12, 1.78) for heterogeneous density, and 1.49 (95% CI: 0.93, 2.37) for extreme density, relative to scattered density. The possible interaction between breast density and menopausal status in relation to DCIS risk was not statistically significant.

Conclusions

We observed an association between breast density and DCIS risk. Although the association seemed stronger in premenopausal women, there was no evidence of an interaction involving breast density and menopausal status.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ernster VL, Ballard-Barbash R, Barlow WE et al (2002) Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ in women undergoing screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 94:1546–1554

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Habel LA, Dignan JJ, Land SR, Salane M, Capra AM, Julian TB (2004) Mammographic density and breast cancer after ductal carcinoma in situ. J Natl Cancer Inst 96:1467–1472

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Boyages J, Delaney G, Taylor R (1999) Predictors of local recurrence after treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ: a meta-analysis. Cancer 85:616–628

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Warnberg F, Yuen J, Holmberg L (2000) Risk of subsequent invasive breast cancer after breast carcinoma in situ. Lancet 355:724–725

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Leonard GD, Swain SM (2004) Ductal carcinoma in situ, complexities and challenges. J Natl Cancer Inst 96:906–920

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Baxter NN, Virnig BA, Durham SB, Tuttle TM (2004) Trends in the treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Natl Cancer Inst 96:443–448

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sewell CW (2004) Pathology of high-risk breast lesions and ductal carcinoma in situ. Radiol Clin North Am 42:821–30, v

    Google Scholar 

  8. Provenzano E, Hopper JL, Giles GG, Marr G, Venter DJ, Armes JE (2004) Histological markers that predict clinical recurrence in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: an Australian population-based study. Pathology 36:221–229

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Renshaw AA, Derhagopian RP, Tizol-Blanco DM, Gould W (2004) Papillomas and atypical papillomas in breast core needle biopsy specimens: risk of carcinoma in subsequent excision. Am J Clin Pathol 122:217–221

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Page DL (2004) Breast lesions, pathology and cancer risk. Breast J 10(Suppl 1):S3–S4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ali-Fehmi R, Carolin K, Wallis T, Visscher DW (2003) Clinicopathologic analysis of breast lesions associated with multiple papillomas. Hum Pathol 34:234–239

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Rodrigues NA, Dillon D, Carter D, Parisot N, Haffty BG (2003) Differences in the pathologic and molecular features of intraductal breast carcinoma between younger and older women. Cancer 97:1393–1403

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wohlfahrt J, Rank F, Kroman N, Melbye M (2004) A comparison of reproductive risk factors for CIS lesions and invasive breast cancer. Int J Cancer 108:750–753

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Claus EB, Stowe M, Carter D (2003) Oral contraceptives and the risk of ductal breast carcinoma in situ. Breast Cancer Res Treat 81:129–136

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Claus EB, Stowe M, Carter D (2001) Breast carcinoma in situ: risk factors and screening patterns. J Natl Cancer Inst 93:1811–1817

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Patel AV, Press MF, Meeske K, Calle EE, Bernstein L (2003) Lifetime recreational exercise activity and risk of breast carcinoma in situ. Cancer 98:2161–2169

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kerlikowske K, Barclay J, Grady D, Sickles EA, Ernster V (1997) Comparison of risk factors for ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 89:76–82

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Trentham-Dietz A, Newcomb PA, Storer BE (2000) Risk factors for carcinoma in situ of the breast. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 9:697–703

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Lambe M, Hsieh CC, Tsaih SW, Ekbom A, Trichopoulos D, Adami HO (1998) Parity, age at first birth and the risk of carcinoma in situ of the breast. Int J Cancer 77:330–332

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Weiss HA, Brinton LA, Brogan D et al (1996) Epidemiology of in situ and invasive breast cancer in women aged under 45. Brit J Cancer 73:1298–1305

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Gapstur SM, Morrow M, Sellers TA (1999) Hormone replacement therapy and risk of breast cancer with a favorable histology. J Am Med Assoc 281:2091–2097

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Brisson J, Morrison AS, Kopans DB et al (1984) Height and weight, mammographic features of breast tissue, and breast cancer risk. Am J Epidemiol 119:371–381

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Byrne C, Schairer C, Wolf J et al (1995) Mammographic features and breast cancer risk: effects with time, age, and menopause status. J Natl Cancer Inst 87:1622–1629

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Boyd NF, Lockwood GA, Byng JW, Tritchler DL, Yaffe MJ (1998) Mammographic densities and breast cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 7:1133–1144

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Gill JK, Maskarinec G, Pagano I, Kolonel LN (2006) The association of mammographic density with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: the Multiethnic Cohort. Breast Cancer Res 8:R30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. American College of Radiology (ACR) (2003) Breast imaging reporting and data system atlas (BI-RADS® Atlas), © American College of Radiology, Reston, Va

  28. Harvey JA, Bovbjerg VE (2004) Quantitative assessment of mammographic breast density: relationship with breast cancer risk. Radiology 230:29–41

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Warner E, Lockwood G, Tritchler D, Boyd NF (1992) The risk of breast cancer associated with mammographic parenchymal patterns: a meta-analysis of the published literature to examine the effect of method of classification. Cancer Detect Prev 16:67–72

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. De Stavola BL, Gravelle IH, Wang DY et al (1990) Relationship of mammographic parenchymal patterns with breast cancer risk factors and risk of breast cancer in a prospective study. Int J Epidemiol 19:247–254

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Baines CJ, Dayan R (1999) A tangled web: factors likely to affect the efficacy of screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 91:833–838

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Vachon CM, Kushi LH, Cerhan JR, Kuni CC, Sellers TA (2000) Association of diet and mammographic breast density in the Minnesota breast cancer family cohort. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 9:151–160

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Gram IT, Funkhouser E, Tabar L (1999) Moderate physical activity in relation to mammographic patterns. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 8:117–122

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Chen Z, Wu AH, Gauderman J et al (2004) Does mammographic density reflect ethnic differences in breast cancer incidence rates? Am J Epidemiol 159:140–147

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Nagata C, Matsubara T, Fujita H et al (2005) Mammographic density and the risk of breast cancer in Japanese women. Br J Cancer 92:2102–2106

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Maskarinec G, Meng L (2000) A case-control study of mammographic densities in Hawaii. Breast Cancer Res Treat 63:153–161

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Rutter CM, Mandelson MT, Laya MB, Taplin S (2001) Changes in breast density associated with initiation, discontinuation, and continuing use of hormone replacement therapy. J Am Med Assoc 285:171–176

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Titus-Ernstoff L, Tosteson A, Kasales C et al (2006) Breast cancer risk factors in relation to breast density. Cancer Causes Control 17:1281–1290

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Chow CK, Venzon D, Jones EC, Premkumar A, O’Shaughnessy J, Zujewski J (2000) Effect of tamoxifen on mammographic density. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 9:917–921

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Boyd NF, Dite GS, Stone J et al (2002) Heritability of mammographic density, a risk factor for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 347(12):886–894

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Ursin G, Hovanessian-Larsen L, Parisky YR, Pike MC, Wu AH (2005) Greatly increased occurrence of breast cancers in areas of mammographically dense tissue. Breast Cancer Res 7:R605–R608

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Ma L, Fishell E, Wright B, Hanna W, Allan S, Boyd NF (1992) Case-control study of factors associated with failure to detect breast cancer by mammography. J Nat Cancer Inst 84:781–785

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL et al (2000) Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen detected cancers. Jour Nat Cancer Inst 92:1081–1087

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Thurfjell E (2002) Breast density and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 347:866

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Holland R, Hendriks JH, Mravunac M (1983) Mammographically occult breast cancer. A pathologic and radiologic study. Cancer 52:1810–1819

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Boyd NH, Rommens JM, Vogt K et al (2005) Mammographic density as an intermediate phenotype for breast cancer. Lancet Oncol 6:798–808

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Community & Family Medicine, Dartmouth Medical School, Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Hanover, NH, USA

    Todd A. MacKenzie, Linda Titus-Ernstoff, Julia E. Weiss, Martha E. Goodrich & Patricia A. Carney

  2. Department of Medicine, Dartmouth Medical School, Hanover, NH, USA

    Todd A. MacKenzie

  3. Department of Pediatrics, Dartmouth Medical School, Hanover, NH, USA

    Linda Titus-Ernstoff

  4. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, One Medical Center Dr. HB 7927, Lebanon, NH, 03756, USA

    Linda Titus-Ernstoff

  5. Department of Medical Biostatistics, Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA

    Pamela M. Vacek

  6. Health Promotions Research, Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA

    Berta Geller

  7. Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA

    Patricia A. Carney

Authors
  1. Todd A. MacKenzie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Linda Titus-Ernstoff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pamela M. Vacek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Berta Geller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Julia E. Weiss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Martha E. Goodrich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Patricia A. Carney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Linda Titus-Ernstoff.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

MacKenzie, T.A., Titus-Ernstoff, L., Vacek, P.M. et al. Breast density in relation to risk of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast in women undergoing screening mammography. Cancer Causes Control 18, 939–945 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-007-9035-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-007-9035-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation