Abstract
Mammographic density is one of the strong risk factors for breast cancer. A potential mechanism for this association is that cumulative exposure to mammographic density may reflect cumulative exposure to hormones that stimulate cell division in breast stroma and epithelium, which may have corresponding effects on breast cancer development. Bone mineral density (BMD), a marker of lifetime estrogen exposure, has been found to be associated with breast cancer. We examined the association between BMD and mammographic density in a Korean population. Study subjects were 730 Korean women selected from the Healthy Twin study. BMD (g/cm2) was measured with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Mammographic density was measured from digital mammograms using a computer-assisted thresholding method. Linear mixed model considering familial correlations and a wide range of covariates was used for analyses. Quantitative genetic analysis was completed using SOLAR. In premenopausal women, positive associations existed between absolute dense area and BMD at ribs, pelvis, and legs, and between percent dense area and BMD at pelvis and legs. However, in postmenopausal women, there was no association between BMD at any site and mammographic density measures. An evaluation of additive genetic cross-trait correlation showed that absolute dense area had a weak-positive additive genetic cross-trait correlation with BMD at ribs and spines after full adjustment of covariates. This finding suggests that the association between mammographic density and breast cancer could, at least in part, be attributable to an estrogen-related hormonal mechanism.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Higher mammographic density is a strong risk factor for breast cancer in both Caucasian and non-white women [1–7]. Mammographic density varies greatly among women, reflecting the relative amount of epithelial and connective tissue and fat tissue in a breast [8]. Mammographic density is associated with some of the established risk factors for breast cancer being related to endogenous and exogenous estrogen levels, such as parity and estrogen replacement therapy [8–11]. The associations of mammographic density with both breast cancer and hormone-related risk factors of breast cancer suggest that circulating estrogen exerts its effect on breast cancer development by influencing mammary parenchyma [12, 13]. However, whilst estrogen is a potential unifying explanation for the association between mammographic density and breast cancer risk, there is limited evidence that circulating estrogen is directly associated with mammographic density [14–19].
Bone mineral density (BMD) is determined by the relative rate of bone resorption and formation, and is closely associated with the endogenous estradiol level [20–24] as well as exogenous estrogen therapy [25–27], which supports the use of BMD as a marker of lifetime estrogen exposure. BMD has also been shown to be positively associated with the risk of breast cancer [28–31] and this association is likely mediated by the effect of estrogen on both breast cancer development and bone remodeling.
Given the relation of BMD with estrogen and breast cancer, an evaluation of the association between BMD and mammographic density could give insight into whether or not a mechanism involving estrogen contributes to the association between mammographic density and breast cancer.
Several studies have evaluated the relationship between BMD and mammographic density with conflicting results [32–38].
In this context, we examined the association between BMD and mammographic density in a study of twins and their family members from a general Korean population. Indeed, this is the first study evaluating the association in an Asian population. Furthermore, the study design involving various family relationships enabled us not only to examine the association but also to explore the possible shared genetic factors influencing both BMD and the mammographic density.
Materials and methods
Study participants
Female participants of the Healthy Twin study with both mammogram and BMD measurements obtained during a routine health examination were included in this study. Details of the Healthy Twin study, a nationwide cross-sectional survey as a part of the Korean Genome Epidemiology Study, have been previously published [39] and only briefly summarized here. Participants were not ascertained by their health status or breast diseases. Between April 2005 and December 2007, a total of 2,278 Korean male and female adult twins (≥30 years of age) and their first-degree adult family members were recruited. Among them, a total of 734 women had both mammogram and BMD measurements available. Four women were excluded because they were shown to be genetically unrelated with their family members. Finally, 730 women from 341 families were included in the analysis with 122 pairs of monozygotic twins, 28 pairs of dizygotic twins, and 430 female family members.
Study variables
Mammograms were obtained using the same full-field digital mammography system (Senographe 2000D/DMR/DS, General Electric Company, Milwaukee, WI, USA) in female participants if they were aged ≥40 years of age at the time of participation in the study or were willing to undergo a mammogram for screening purposes. A single observer blinded to all identifying information measured the mammographic density in one cranio-caudal view of the right breast for each woman using a computer-assisted thresholding technique (Cumulus). Using the technique, the total area and area of absolute dense tissue of the breast were directly measured, then, the non-dense area and percent dense area were derived. This measure has been shown to be highly reproducible and reliable [40]. Mammograms were first randomized by family into reading sets of approximately 100 insuring that all twins and/or relatives of the same family were measured in the same set. A 10% random sample of repeats was included in each set and between every third set to test the reliability of the measurement; the estimated intra-class correlation coefficient for the total area, dense area, non-dense area, and percent dense area was 0.99, 0.98, 0.97, and 0.98, respectively.
BMDs (g/cm2) of the whole body, rib, spine, pelvis, leg, and arm were measured using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (Lunar Radiation, Madison, WI, USA; and Delphi W; Hologic, Boston, MA, USA). These devices were maintained using the standard quality control procedures as recommended by the manufacturer to assure that the BMD calibration remained constant and the reported coefficient of variation was 1.0%.
Body weight (kg) was measured to the nearest 0.1 kg using a digital scale with the participant in light clothing and wearing no shoes. Height (cm) was measured to the nearest 0.1 cm using a stadiometer, while the participant stood with heels together, arms to the side, legs straight, shoulders relaxed, and the head in ‘look straight ahead’ position. Body mass index was calculated as the weight divided by the height squared (kg/m2).
A self-administered questionnaire collected information regarding health behaviors (smoking, alcohol consumption, and physical activity) and reproductive history (age at menarche, age at the first childbirth, number of live children, duration of breast feeding, menopause, use of oral contraceptives, and use of hormone replacement therapy). Among women who reported no menstruation for the last 12 months, only those women who reported natural menopause, had received hormonal replacement therapy, or who were aged 55 or older were considered postmenopausal. The other women were considered pre-menopausal regardless of whether or not they had undergone a hysterectomy.
Zygosity of twin pairs was identified by 16 short tandem repeat (STR) markers, including 15 autosomal STR markers and one sex-determining marker (Perkin Elmer, Waltham, MA, USA) in 67% of the twin pairs. For the remaining 33% of the twin pairs, the zygosity was determined by a self-administered zygosity questionnaire that was validated to be 94.3% accurate through a STR marker study [41].
All participants provided written informed consent when they visited the study center. The study protocol was approved by the Korea Center for Disease Control and the Institutional Review Board of the three participating centers (Samsung Medical Center, Pusan Paik Hospital, and Dankook University Hospital).
Statistical analysis
Selected characteristics were compared between premenopausal and postmenopausal women using student t-test and χ2 test. In order to see the overall relationship, the age-adjusted mammographic density measures by quartile level of BMD at each site of measurement were calculated using analysis of covariance, and linear trend was examined using age-adjusted linear regression analysis. The association between BMD and mammographic density was evaluated using mixed linear model [42]. Each of the mammographic density measures was examined for normality and subsequently log transformed. Correlation structures from family relationships were adjusted by considering family (as family number) and twins (as twin number) as random effects. Covariates (age, smoking, alcohol consumption, physical exercise, age at menarche, age at the first full-term childbirth, number of live children, duration of breast feeding, and use of oral contraceptives) selected on the basis of previously reported probable associations with BMD and mammographic density [8, 20, 43] were put in the model as fixed effects. For postmenopausal women, the use of hormone replacement therapy was additionally included in the model as a fixed effect. To minimize the reduction of study power that may occur by missing information for variables included in the multivariable model, we imputed missing values for the age at menarche and age at the first full-term childbirth with median values of women of the same age. We also imputed missing values for the duration of breast feeding with median values of women who had the same number of live children. We further examined the association between BMD and mammographic density measures in two subgroups stratified by menopausal status (premenopausal and postmenopausal) and tested the statistical significance of interaction terms (BMD * menopausal status) in the multivariable model.
To ascertain evidence of a common genetic regulation between BMD and mammographic density, we conducted bivariate variance-component-based genetic analysis using Sequential Oligogenic Linkage Analysis Routines (SOLAR; version 2.0) [44]. The bivariate variance-component analysis allows the phenotypic correlations to be partitioned into genetic (ρ G) and environmental correlations (ρ E). It can also examine whether or not the correlation between two or more phenotypes of an individual is concurrently determined by shared genes and the environment. If a significant genetic correlation existed, it was considered evidence of pleiotropy, genetic effect of a single gene on multiple phenotypic traits, or common genetic factors influencing both phenotypes through shared pathways. To estimate independent genetic correlations, age was adjusted first, and then other covariates were adjusted.
Results
Table 1 shows selected characteristics of the participants included in this analysis. Of the 730 participants, 462 (63.3%) were premenopausal and 268 (36.7%) were postmenopausal. The mean age was 40.0 and 59.8 years for premenopausal and postmenopausal women, respectively. Compared to postmenopausal women, premenopausal women had a higher absolute mammographic dense area, percent dense area, BMD at all measured sites, and body mass index, while the premenopausal women had a smaller non-dense mammographic area. Ever-smoking and current alcohol consumption were more prevalent among premenopausal women. Postmenopausal women had menarche at an older age, the first childbirth at a younger age, a greater number of live children, a longer duration of breast feeding, and were more likely to be an ever-user of oral contraceptives.
Figure 1 shows the age-adjusted levels of the mammographic density measures by quartiles of BMD at each site of measurement. With increasing levels of the BMD at ribs, pelvis, arms, and legs, both non-dense and dense areas of mammographic measures increased (P for trend <0.05). Percent dense area decreased with increasing levels of pelvis BMD (P for trend <0.05), but no association was found between percent dense area and the BMD at other sites.
Table 2 shows the relationship between the BMD at each site and each mammographic density measure according to menopausal status. In premenopausal women, there were significant associations between the BMD at several sites and mammographic density measures. Absolute dense area was positively associated with the BMD at the ribs, pelvis, and legs. Percent dense area was positively associated with pelvis and leg BMD. Non-dense area was inversely associated with arm BMD. However, in postmenopausal women, there was no significant association between BMD and mammographic density measures. When pre- and post-menopausal women were combined, absolute dense area and percent dense area were positively associated with the BMD at ribs, pelvis, arms, and legs, whereas the non-dense area was inversely associated with arm BMD. When we examined the presence of any interaction between the BMD and menopausal status, the interaction term (BMD * menopausal status) was not statistically significant (data not shown).
Table 3 shows the total and additive genetic cross-trait correlation between the BMD at each site and mammographic density measures. Among the BMD at sites that showed significant association with mammographic density measures, only the rib BMD had a positive genetic cross-trait correlation with absolute dense area when covariates were fully adjusted. There was no significant genetic correlation between percent dense area and the BMD at any site.
Discussion
In this Korean twin and family study, we found that a positive association existed between BMD and mammographic density, even after a wide range of covariates were considered. Although the significant association tended to be confined to premenopausal women, these findings are consistent with the association of BMD and mammographic density with estrogen and breast cancer.
As mentioned previously, several studies have examined the association between BMD and mammographic density with conflicting results [32–38]. Crandall and colleagues showed a positive association at the lumbar spine and femur in a study of 594 postmenopausal women [36]. However, this association was limited to postmenopausal women not using hormone replacement therapy. Larger study by Kerlikowske and colleagues (N ~ 15,000, mostly postmenopausal women) [38] revealed no evidence of an association. Dite and colleagues studied twins and showed that there was no overlap of the genetic determinants between BMD and mammographic density [34]. They also applied similar statistical analyses used by Crandall and colleagues to a larger set of twin data and found no evidence of an association between BMD and mammographic density [33]. Larger study by Buist and colleagues (N = 2,000 postmenopausal women) showed an inverse association confined to women with normal body mass index (<25 kg/m2) [32]. Two more recent studies found evidence of an inverse association between BMD and mammographic density [35, 37]. Crandall and colleagues found evidence of an inverse association in approximately 401 perimenopausal women, but this association depended on whether hormone users were included in the model [37]. They found no evidence of an association in 100 premenopausal women after adjusting for body mass index and other covariates. Yong and colleagues reported weak inverse correlations between percent dense area and BMD at lumbar spine, pelvis, and head in 192 premenopausal women [35].
Separate evaluation of the association between BMD and mammographic density according to the menopausal status is essential for the following reasons: both BMD and mammographic density are markedly influenced by the menopausal transition [8]; body mass index is closely associated with BMD and mammographic density and shows a different association with breast cancer as a function of menopausal status [45]; and it is uncertain whether the response of a breast to endogenous steroid hormones differs between pre- and post-menopausal women.
The current study is the first study to report a positive association between BMD and mammographic density in premenopausal women. Our study has an adequate size of 462 premenopausal participants providing 80% power to detect medium effect size (f 2 = 0.15) at the 5% level and a wide range of potential confounders were considered.
On the contrary, there was no association between the BMD and mammographic density in postmenopausal women, for which several explanations could be considered. Firstly, it has been suggested that the positive association between BMD and mammographic density might be obscured by recent postmenopausal hormone use that exerts a persistent effect on breast tissue [36]. However, Dite and colleagues found no positive association between mammographic density and BMD both for women who were recent or current users and for women who were never or past users of hormone replacement therapy [33]. To clarify this controversy, we re-analyzed our data after excluding women who ever-used hormone replacement therapy and we found no evidence supporting that the association between BMD and mammographic density was obscured by hormone use (data not shown). Therefore, it is less likely that the residual effect of recent or current hormone use has obscured the association between BMD and mammographic density in postmenopausal women. Secondly, considering that the direction and size of the estimates for the association between mammographic density measures and BMD did not differ materially between pre- and postmenopausal women, it seems possible that the small number of postmenopausal women (N = 268, 57% power to detect medium effect size) in our study have caused adequate statistical power for detecting significant association in postmenopausal women. Finally, it is still possible that the association between BMD and mammographic density measures in postmenopausal women differs from that in premenopausal women. Although statistical testing for the interaction term did not support any modification of the association between BMD and mammographic density as a function of menopausal status, this might be due to the lack of adequate statistical power.
Both mammographic density and BMD are known to be highly heritable [46, 47]. However, Dite and colleagues who have investigated in 134 pairs of twins whether or not the genetic determinants of mammographic density and BMD overlap, did not find any evidence of significant association between percent density and BMD at several sites [34]. In current study, we found a significant additive genetic correlation between the absolute dense area and BMD at the ribs and spines but not for percent dense area. This finding suggests that genetic determinants do play an important role in the association between BMD and absolute dense area of a breast.
Interestingly, we found that the absolute dense area was more strongly associated with BMD and had an association with BMD at more multiple sites compared to the percent dense area, suggesting that the absolute dense area may reflect the effect of exposure to estrogen better than percent dense area. Given the stronger phenotypic and genetic associations of BMD with absolute dense area than that with percent dense area, absolute dense area may reflect the effect of lifetime exposure to estrogen better than percent dense area.
In the current study, the positive association of BMD with the absolute dense area and percent density was strengthened when the analysis was adjusted for body mass index. This is probably because body mass index is positively associated with BMD [48], but inversely associated with mammographic density [49].
This study had several strengths. A wide range of lifestyle factors and reproductive risk factors for breast cancer and osteoporosis were identified and included in the analysis. Also twin and family data allowed for the evaluation of genetic pleiotrophy between BMD and the three different mammographic density measures. However, there were limitations to be considered. We could not measure the relevant hormone levels and could not exclude that hormones other than estrogen may have effects on the BMD and mammographic density. We also did not have information regarding the use of bone medications such as bisphophonates, which could have resulted in an underestimation of positive association in older postmenopausal women who were more likely to be osteoporotic. We could not separately measure the BMD of lumbar spine which is more likely to be hormonally responsive and under greater influence of estrogen deficiency. Finally, although mammographic density and BMD were measured concomitantly in a woman, all premenstrual women did not undergo mammograms and BMD measurements during the same phase of the menstrual cycle.
In conclusion, higher BMD was associated with higher mammographic density in Korean premenopausal women and some part of this association could be explained by genetic effect. This finding suggests that breast density could be influenced by estrogen exposure, if BMD is truly a marker of lifetime estrogen exposure. It also suggests that there could be an underlying common pathway that may link higher mammographic density, greater BMD, and increased breast cancer risk.
Abbreviations
- BMD:
-
Bone mineral density
References
Brisson J, Morrison AS, Kopans DB, Sadowsky NL, Kalisher L, Twaddle JA, Meyer JE, Henschke CI, Cole P (1984) Height and weight, mammographic features of breast tissue, and breast cancer risk. Am J Epidemiol 119:371–381
Byrne C, Schairer C, Brinton LA, Wolfe J, Parekh N, Salane M, Carter C, Hoover R (2001) Effects of mammographic density and benign breast disease on breast cancer risk (United States). Cancer Causes Control 12:103–110
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
Nagata C, Matsubara T, Fujita H, Nagao Y, Shibuya C, Kashiki Y, Shimizu H (2005) Mammographic density and the risk of breast cancer in Japanese women. Br J Cancer 92:2102–2106
Maskarinec G, Pagano I, Lurie G, Wilkens LR, Kolonel LN (2005) Mammographic density and breast cancer risk: the multiethnic cohort study. Am J Epidemiol 162:743–752
Ursin G, Ma H, Wu AH, Bernstein L, Salane M, Parisky YR, Astrahan M, Siozon CC, Pike MC (2003) Mammographic density and breast cancer in three ethnic groups. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 12:332–338
Chen Z, Wu AH, Gauderman WJ, Bernstein L, Ma H, Pike MC, Ursin G (2004) Does mammographic density reflect ethnic differences in breast cancer incidence rates? Am J Epidemiol 159:140–147
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 6:798–808
Heng D, Gao F, Jong R, Fishell E, Yaffe M, Martin L, Li T, Stone J, Sun L, Hopper J, Boyd NF (2004) Risk factors for breast cancer associated with mammographic features in Singaporean Chinese women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 13:1751–1758
Stone J, Warren RM, Pinney E, Warwick J, Cuzick J (2009) Determinants of percentage and area measures of mammographic density. Am J Epidemiol 170:1571–1578
Butler LM, Gold EB, Greendale GA, Crandall CJ, Modugno F, Oestreicher N, Quesenberry CP Jr, Habel LA (2008) Menstrual and reproductive factors in relation to mammographic density: the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation (SWAN). Breast Cancer Res Treat 112:165–174
Key TJ, Appleby PN, Reeves GK, Roddam A, Dorgan JF, Longcope C, Stanczyk FZ, Stephenson HE Jr, Falk RT, Miller R, Schatzkin A, Allen DS, Fentiman IS, Key TJ, Wang DY, Dowsett M, Thomas HV, Hankinson SE, Toniolo P, Akhmedkhanov A, Koenig K, Shore RE, Zeleniuch-Jacquotte A, Berrino F, Muti P, Micheli A, Krogh V, Sieri S, Pala V, Venturelli E, Secreto G, Barrett-Connor E, Laughlin GA, Kabuto M, Akiba S, Stevens RG, Neriishi K, Land CE, Cauley JA, Kuller LH, Cummings SR, Helzlsouer KJ, Alberg AJ, Bush TL, Comstock GW, Gordon GB, Miller SR, Longcope C (2003) Body mass index, serum sex hormones, and breast cancer risk in postmenopausal women. J Natl Cancer Inst 95:1218–1226
Suzuki R, Rylander-Rudqvist T, Ye W, Saji S, Wolk A (2006) Body weight and postmenopausal breast cancer risk defined by estrogen and progesterone receptor status among Swedish women: a prospective cohort study. Int J Cancer 119:1683–1689
Boyd NF, Stone J, Martin LJ, Jong R, Fishell E, Yaffe M, Hammond G, Minkin S (2002) The association of breast mitogens with mammographic densities. Br J Cancer 87:876–882
Noh JJ, Maskarinec G, Pagano I, Cheung LW, Stanczyk FZ (2006) Mammographic densities and circulating hormones: a cross-sectional study in premenopausal women. Breast 15:20–28
Tamimi RM, Hankinson SE, Colditz GA, Byrne C (2005) Endogenous sex hormone levels and mammographic density among postmenopausal women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 14:2641–2647
Aiello EJ, Tworoger SS, Yasui Y, Stanczyk FZ, Potter J, Ulrich CM, Irwin M, McTiernan A (2005) Associations among circulating sex hormones, insulin-like growth factor, lipids, and mammographic density in postmenopausal women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 14:1411–1417
Greendale GA, Reboussin BA, Sie A, Singh HR, Olson LK, Gatewood O, Bassett LW, Wasilauskas C, Bush T, Barrett-Connor E (1999) Effects of estrogen and estrogen-progestin on mammographic parenchymal density. Postmenopausal Estrogen/Progestin Interventions (PEPI) Investigators. Ann Intern Med 130:262–269
Warren R, Skinner J, Sala E, Denton E, Dowsett M, Folkerd E, Healey CS, Dunning A, Doody D, Ponder B, Luben RN, Day NE, Easton D (2006) Associations among mammographic density, circulating sex hormones, and polymorphisms in sex hormone metabolism genes in postmenopausal women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 15:1502–1508
Nguyen TV, Jones G, Sambrook PN, White CP, Kelly PJ, Eisman JA (1995) Effects of estrogen exposure and reproductive factors on bone mineral density and osteoporotic fractures. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 80:2709–2714
Lambrinoudaki I, Christodoulakos G, Aravantinos L, Antoniou A, Rizos D, Chondros C, Kountouris A, Chrysofakis G, Creatsas G (2006) Endogenous sex steroids and bone mineral density in healthy Greek postmenopausal women. J Bone Miner Metab 24:65–71
Murphy S, Khaw KT, Sneyd MJ, Compston JE (1992) Endogenous sex hormones and bone mineral density among community-based postmenopausal women. Postgrad Med J 68:908–913
Cauley JA, Gutai JP, Kuller LH, LeDonne D, Sandler RB, Sashin D, Powell JG (1988) Endogenous estrogen levels and calcium intakes in postmenopausal women. Relationships with cortical bone measures. JAMA 260:3150–3155
Cauley JA, Gutai JP, Sandler RB, LaPorte RE, Kuller LH, Sashin D (1986) The relationship of endogenous estrogen to bone density and bone area in normal postmenopausal women. Am J Epidemiol 124:752–761
Yasui T, Uemura H, Umino Y, Takikawa M, Kuwahara A, Saito S, Matsuzaki T, Maegawa M, Furumoto H, Miura M, Irahara M (2004) Serum estradiol concentration as measured by HPLC-RIA and bone mineral density in postmenopausal women during hormone replacement therapy. Horm Res 61:117–125
Villareal DT, Binder EF, Williams DB, Schechtman KB, Yarasheski KE, Kohrt WM (2001) Bone mineral density response to estrogen replacement in frail elderly women: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 286:815–820
Heikkinen J, Vaheri R, Kainulainen P, Timonen U (2000) Long-term continuous combined hormone replacement therapy in the prevention of postmenopausal bone loss: a comparison of high- and low-dose estrogen-progestin regimens. Osteoporos Int 11:929–937
Nguyen TV, Center JR, Eisman JA (2000) Association between breast cancer and bone mineral density: the Dubbo Osteoporosis Epidemiology Study. Maturitas 36:27–34
Chen Z, Arendell L, Aickin M, Cauley J, Lewis CE, Chlebowski R (2008) Hip bone density predicts breast cancer risk independently of Gail score: results from the Women’s Health Initiative. Cancer 113:907–915
Nelson DA, Darga LL, Simon MS, Severson RK (2004) Radial bone density and breast cancer risk in white and African-American women. Osteoporos Int 15:535–540
Cauley JA, Lucas FL, Kuller LH, Vogt MT, Browner WS, Cummings SR (1996) Bone mineral density and risk of breast cancer in older women: the study of osteoporotic fractures. Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group. JAMA 276:1404–1408
Buist DS, Anderson ML, Taplin SH, LaCroix AZ (2004) The relationship between breast density and bone mineral density in postmenopausal women. Cancer 101:1968–1976
Dite GS, Wark JD, Giles GG, English DR, McCredie MR, Hopper JL (2006) Is there a positive association between mammographic density and bone mineral density? Breast Cancer Res 8:401
Dite GS, Wark JD, Giles GG, English DR, McCredie MR, Hopper JL (2005) Is there overlap between the genetic determinants of mammographic density and bone mineral density? Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 14:2266–2268
Yong M, Atkinson C, Newton KM, iello Bowles EJ, Stanczyk FZ, Westerlind KC, Holt VL, Schwartz SM, Leisenring WM, Lampe JW (2009) Associations between endogenous sex hormone levels and mammographic and bone densities in premenopausal women. Cancer Causes Control 20:1039–1053
Crandall C, Palla S, Reboussin BA, Ursin G, Greendale GA (2005) Positive association between mammographic breast density and bone mineral density in the Postmenopausal Estrogen/Progestin Interventions Study. Breast Cancer Res 7:R922–R928
Crandall CJ, Zheng Y, Karlamangla A, Sternfeld B, Habel LA, Oestreicher N, Johnston J, Cauley JA, Greendale GA (2007) The association between mammographic breast density and bone mineral density in the study of women’s health across the nation. Ann Epidemiol 17:575–583
Kerlikowske K, Shepherd J, Creasman J, Tice JA, Ziv E, Cummings SR (2005) Are breast density and bone mineral density independent risk factors for breast cancer? J Natl Cancer Inst 97:368–374
Sung J, Cho SI, Lee K, Ha M, Choi EY, Choi JS, Kim H, Kim J, Hong KS, Kim Y, Yoo KY, Park C, Song YM (2006) Healthy Twin: a twin-family study of Korea—protocols and current status. Twin Res Hum Genet 9:844–848
Byng JW, Yaffe MJ, Jong RA, Shumak RS, Lockwood GA, Tritchler DL, Boyd NF (1998) Analysis of mammographic density and breast cancer risk from digitized mammograms. Radiographics 18:1587–1598
Song YM, Lee D, Lee K, Lee HJ, Sung J, Han B (2010) Validity of the zygosity questionnaire and characteristics of zygosity-misdiagnosed twin pairs in the Healthy Twin Study of Korea. Twin Res Human Genet 13:223–230
Littell RC, Milliken GA, Stroup WW, Wolfinger RD, Schabenberger O (2006) SAS for mixed models. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC
Shin CS, Choi HJ, Kim MJ, Kim JT, Yu SH, Koo BK, Cho HY, Cho SW, Kim SW, Park YJ, Jang HC, Kim SY, Cho NH (2010) Prevalence and risk factors of osteoporosis in Korea: a community-based cohort study with lumbar spine and hip bone mineral density. Bone 47:378–387
Almasy L, Blangero J (1998) Multipoint quantitative-trait linkage analysis in general pedigrees. Am J Hum Genet 62:1198–1211
Friedenreich CM (2001) Review of anthropometric factors and breast cancer risk. Eur J Cancer Prev 10:15–32
Sung J, Song YM, Stone J, Lee K, Jeong JI, Kim SS (2010) Genetic influences on mammographic density in Korean twin and family: the Healthy Twin study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 124:467–474
Krall EA, wson-Hughes B (1993) Heritable and life-style determinants of bone mineral density. J Bone Miner Res 8:1–9
Morin S, Leslie WD (2009) High bone mineral density is associated with high body mass index. Osteoporos Int 20:1267–1271
Sung J, Song YM, Stone J, Lee K, Kim SY (2010) Association of body size measurements and mammographic density in Korean women: the Healthy Twin study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 19:1523–1531
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the National Genome Research Institute, Korea, National Institute of Health research contract (budgets 2005-347-2400-2440-215, 2006-347-2400-2440-215, 2007-347-2400-2440-215, 2008-E00255-00, and 2009-E00500-00), Korean Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, (Grant Number M10305030005), and the Samsung Biomedical Research Institute (SBRI C-A9-218-1). The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and not necessarily any funding body.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sung, J., Song, YM., Stone, J. et al. The relationship between bone mineral density and mammographic density in Korean women: The Healthy Twin study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 129, 583–591 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-011-1523-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-011-1523-1