Yaghjyan Lusine, Tamimi Rulla M, Bertrand Kimberly A, Scott Christopher G, Jensen Matthew R, Pankratz V Shane, Brandt Kathy, Visscher Daniel, Norman Aaron, Couch Fergus, Shepherd John, Fan Bo, Chen Yunn-Yi, Ma Lin, Beck Andrew H, Cummings Steven R, Kerlikowske Karla, Vachon Celine M
Department of Epidemiology, College of Public Health and Health Professions and College of Medicine, University of Florida, 2004 Mowry Road, Gainesville, FL, 32610, USA.
Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, 181 Longwood Avenue, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017 Sep;165(2):421-431. doi: 10.1007/s10549-017-4341-2. Epub 2017 Jun 17.
We examined the associations of mammographic breast density with breast cancer risk by tumor aggressiveness and by menopausal status and current postmenopausal hormone therapy.
This study included 2596 invasive breast cancer cases and 4059 controls selected from participants of four nested case-control studies within four established cohorts: the Mayo Mammography Health Study, the Nurses' Health Study, Nurses' Health Study II, and San Francisco Mammography Registry. Percent breast density (PD), absolute dense (DA), and non-dense areas (NDA) were assessed from digitized film-screen mammograms using a computer-assisted threshold technique and standardized across studies. We used polytomous logistic regression to quantify the associations of breast density with breast cancer risk by tumor aggressiveness (defined as presence of at least two of the following tumor characteristics: size ≥2 cm, grade 2/3, ER-negative status, or positive nodes), stratified by menopausal status and current hormone therapy.
Overall, the positive association of PD and borderline inverse association of NDA with breast cancer risk was stronger in aggressive vs. non-aggressive tumors (≥51 vs. 11-25% OR 2.50, 95% CI 1.94-3.22 vs. OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.70-2.43, p-heterogeneity = 0.03; NDA 4th vs. 2nd quartile OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.41-0.70 vs. OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.59-0.85, p-heterogeneity = 0.07). However, there were no differences in the association of DA with breast cancer by aggressive status. In the stratified analysis, there was also evidence of a stronger association of PD and NDA with aggressive tumors among postmenopausal women and, in particular, current estrogen+progesterone users (≥51 vs. 11-25% OR 3.24, 95% CI 1.75-6.00 vs. OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.25-2.98, p-heterogeneity = 0.01; NDA 4th vs. 2nd quartile OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.21-0.85 vs. OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.35-0.89, p-heterogeneity = 0.01), even though the interaction was not significant.
Our findings suggest that associations of mammographic density with breast cancer risk differ by tumor aggressiveness. While there was no strong evidence that these associations differed by menopausal status or hormone therapy, they did appear more prominent among current estrogen+progesterone users.
我们通过肿瘤侵袭性、绝经状态和当前绝经后激素治疗情况,研究了乳腺钼靶密度与乳腺癌风险之间的关联。
本研究纳入了2596例浸润性乳腺癌病例和4059例对照,这些病例和对照选自四个既定队列中的四项巢式病例对照研究的参与者,这四个队列分别是梅奥乳腺钼靶健康研究、护士健康研究、护士健康研究II和旧金山乳腺钼靶登记处。使用计算机辅助阈值技术从数字化的屏-片乳腺钼靶片中评估乳腺密度百分比(PD)、绝对致密面积(DA)和非致密面积(NDA),并在各项研究中进行标准化。我们使用多分类逻辑回归,按绝经状态和当前激素治疗情况进行分层,以量化乳腺密度与不同肿瘤侵袭性(定义为存在以下至少两种肿瘤特征:大小≥2 cm、2/3级、雌激素受体阴性状态或阳性淋巴结)的乳腺癌风险之间的关联。
总体而言,PD与乳腺癌风险的正相关以及NDA与乳腺癌风险的临界负相关在侵袭性肿瘤与非侵袭性肿瘤中更强(≥51% vs. 11 - 25%,OR分别为2.50,95% CI 1.94 - 3.22 vs. OR 2.03,95% CI 1.70 - 2.43,p异质性 = 0.03;NDA第4四分位数vs.第2四分位数,OR分别为0.54,95% CI 0.41 - 0.70 vs. OR 0.71,95% CI 0.59 - 0.85,p异质性 = 0.07)。然而,DA与乳腺癌风险的关联在不同侵袭状态下并无差异。在分层分析中,也有证据表明绝经后女性,尤其是当前使用雌激素加孕激素的女性中,PD和NDA与侵袭性肿瘤的关联更强(≥51% vs. 11 - 25%,OR分别为3.24,95% CI 1.75 - 6.00 vs. OR 1.93,95% CI 1.25 - 2.98,p异质性 = 0.01;NDA第4四分位数vs.第2四分位数,OR分别为0.43,95% CI 0.21 - 0.85 vs. OR 0.56,95% CI 0.35 - 0.89,p异质性 = 0.01),尽管交互作用不显著。
我们的研究结果表明,乳腺钼靶密度与乳腺癌风险的关联因肿瘤侵袭性而异。虽然没有强有力的证据表明这些关联因绝经状态或激素治疗而不同,但在当前使用雌激素加孕激素的女性中似乎更为突出。