Abstract
Purpose
Few studies have investigated the association between breast density and breast cancer by a family history of breast cancer, menopausal status, and postmenopausal hormone use (PMH). We investigated if associations of breast density and breast cancer differ according to the status of these risk factors.
Methods
This study included 1,481 incident breast cancer cases diagnosed within the Nurses’ Health Study I and II cohorts and 2,779 matched controls. Breast density was measured from digitized film images with computerized techniques. Information on breast cancer risk factors was obtained prospectively from the biennial questionnaires before the date of the cancer diagnosis for cancer cases and their matched controls. The data were analyzed with logistic regression.
Results
Breast cancer risk increased with increasing percent breast density in all strata (p for trend in all subsets <0.0001). The density-related risk of breast cancer was similar in women with and without a family history (OR = 4.00 [95 % CI 2.01–7.94] vs. 3.71 [95 % CI 2.79–4.94] for density ≥50 % vs. <10 %, p for interaction = 0.53). The magnitude of the association between density and breast cancer risk, however, appeared to be stronger in premenopausal women than in postmenopausal women without PMH history (OR = 5.49 [95 % CI 2.44–12.39] vs. 3.02 [95 % CI 1.62–5.63] for density ≥50 % vs. <10 %, p-heterogeneity = 0.17) and appeared to be stronger in postmenopausal women currently using hormones compared with postmenopausal women who never used PMH (OR = 4.50 [95 % CI 2.99–6.78] vs. 3.02, p-heterogeneity = 0.20) or with past hormone use (OR = 4.50 vs. 3.71 [95 % CI 1.90–7.23], p-heterogeneity = 0.23).
Conclusions
Findings on associations by menopausal status/hormone use are suggestive and should be examined in additional larger studies.
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Mammographic breast density is a well-established and a strong predictor of breast cancer risk [1–4]. Appearance of the breast on the mammogram is a reflection of the amount of fat, connective, and epithelial tissue in the breast [3]. Light (non-radiolucent) areas on the mammogram represent the fibrous and glandular tissues (“mammographically dense”), whereas the dark (radiolucent) areas are primarily fat. Women with 75 % or greater percent density (proportion of the breast that appears dense on the mammogram out of the total breast area) are at 4–6 times greater risk of breast cancer compared with women with fatty breasts [3, 5, 6]. Whether breast density-related breast cancer risk differs by a family history of breast cancer and by menopausal status and a history of postmenopausal hormone use is poorly understood [5–10]. A recent study by Kerlikowske et al. reported a stronger association of high breast density with breast cancer in premenopausal women and postmenopausal hormone users compared with postmenopausal women not on hormones [11]. In other studies, an increase in breast cancer risk in denser breasts was found both in women with and without a family history of breast cancer [12–15]. In a study by Martin et al., the association of density with the risk of breast cancer appeared four times stronger in women with a family history and denser breasts (≥50 %) as compared with women without a family history and low density (<10 %) [15]. We analyzed data from the Nurses’ Health Study to determine if differences exist in the association between breast density and breast cancer risk by a family history of breast cancer, menopausal status and, among postmenopausal women, by a history of postmenopausal hormone (PMH) use.
Participants and methods
Participants for this nested case–control study were selected from the Nurses’ Health Study I (NHS I) and the Nurses’ Health Study II (NHS II) cohorts. These prospective cohorts followed registered nurses in the United States who were 30–55 years (NHS I) or 25–42 years old (NHS II) at enrollment. After administration of the initial questionnaire, the information on breast health risk factors and any diagnoses of cancer or other diseases was updated biennially [3, 16].
Breast cancer cases were confirmed through medical record review. We collected mammograms of breast cancer cases and controls from nested case–control studies in NHSI and NHSII. In both studies, breast cancer cases were matched to controls 1:1 or 1:2 on age at the time of blood collection, menopausal status and postmenopausal hormone use (current vs. not current) at blood draw, and day/time of blood draw. In total we obtained useable mammograms on 1,481 in situ or invasive breast cancer cases and 2,779 matched controls, which contributed to this analysis. This study excluded women with any prior cancer diagnosis (other than non-melanoma skin). This study was approved by the Committee on the Use of Human Subjects in Research at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.
Mammographic breast density assessment
To quantify mammographic density, the craniocaudal views of both breasts were digitized at 261 μm per pixel with a Lumisys 85 laser film scanner (bit depth of 12). The Cumulus software (University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada) was used for computer-assisted determination of the percent mammographic density [3, 17]. During this assessment, the observer was blinded with respect to participant’s case–control status. As reported previously, the measure of mammographic breast density was highly reproducible (within person intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.93) [3]. Since densities of the right and left breast are strongly correlated [17], the average percent density of both breasts was used in this analysis. The average time between the mammogram date and the date of breast cancer diagnosis was 4.8 years (interquartile range 2–7 years). The average time between mammogram and the reference date of controls was 3.9 years (interquartile range 1–7 years).
Covariate information
Information on breast health risk factors was obtained from the biennial questionnaires before the date of the breast cancer diagnosis (reference date) for cases and their matched controls. Women were considered postmenopausal if they reported (1) no menstrual periods within the 12 months prior to diagnosis date, if natural menopause, (2) having had bilateral oophorectomy, or hysterectomy with retention of at least one ovary, or (3) being 54 or 56 years or older if a smoker or nonsmoker, respectively. Family history of breast cancer was self-reported and referred to any 1st degree relative with breast cancer diagnosis.
Statistical analysis
The analyses were performed using SAS software (version 9.2, SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA). The difference in breast density distributions in cases and controls was tested with Wilcoxon-Mann–Whitney test. We used unconditional logistic regression to describe the association between breast density and breast cancer risk. The risk estimates were presented as odds ratios (ORs) and their corresponding 95 % Confidence Intervals (95 % CIs).
Variables that previously showed significant association with either breast cancer or breast density in previous studies, including those from NHS, were considered as potential confounders and included in adjusted logistic regression models. We included the following matching variables and potential confounders : age at diagnosis (continuous, years), body mass index (continuous, kg/m2), age at menarche (<12, 12, 13, or >13 years), parity and age at first birth (i.e., age at the end of the first pregnancy lasting ≥6 months, modeled as nulliparous, 1–4 children with age at birth <25 years, 1–4 children with age at birth of 25–29 years, 1–4 children with age at birth of ≥30 years, ≥5 children with age at birth of <25 years, or ≥5 children with age at birth of ≥25 years), menopausal status and PMH use (premenopausal, postmenopausal who never used hormones, postmenopausal who ever used hormones), age at menopause (<46, 46–<50, 50–<55, ≥55 years, unknown, including premenopausal women), a family history of breast cancer (yes or no), alcohol consumption (0, <5, 5–<15, or ≥15 g/day), and smoking status (ever vs. never).
The association of breast density with breast cancer risk was examined separately according to family history of breast cancer (any or none), menopausal status, and postmenopausal hormone use (premenopausal women, postmenopausal who never used hormones, postmenopausal with current hormone use, postmenopausal with past hormone use). The difference in the association of breast density with breast cancer risk by these risk factors was tested with two-way interactions and using Wald Chi-square test. Significance in all the analyses was assessed at 0.05 level.
Results
In this nested case–control study of 1,481 breast cancer cases and 2,779 matched controls, cases had a higher mean percent breast density (33.7 vs. 25.6 %, p < 0.0001) and higher proportion of women with density ≥25 % (χ2 p < 0.0001). Among cases, there was a significantly larger proportion of postmenopausal women who had previously used hormones sometime before the reference date (date of diagnosis) (66.5 vs. 58.6 % in controls, p < 0.0001), women with a family history of breast cancer (17.4 vs. 12.7 %, p < 0.0001), and women with a prior benign breast disease (61.8 vs. 53.0 %, p < 0.0001). Cases and controls did not differ with respect to other covariates.
In the overall adjusted logistic regression analysis, the risk of breast cancer significantly increased with increasing percent breast density (≥50 % vs. <10 %: 3.74, 95 % CI 2.88–4.87, p for trend <0.0001). We next evaluated the association of breast density in women with and without a family history of breast cancer (Table 1). Breast cancer risk increased with increasing breast density regardless of family history (for density ≥50 vs. <10 %: OR = 4.00 [95 % CI 2.01–7.94] in women with a family history vs. 3.71 [95 % CI 2.79–4.94] in women without a family history). We observed no interaction of breast density with a family history of breast cancer (p for interaction 0.53). When the two risk factors were included in the analysis as a combined variable, the risk was 5.34 (95 % CI 3.46–8.25) times greater in women with a family history and dense breasts as compared with women with no family history and low density.
When stratified by menopausal status and PMH history (Table 2), breast cancer risk increased with increasing breast density in all categories, although the magnitude of the association was lowest among postmenopausal women who never used hormones. The risk of breast cancer associated with the highest breast density (≥50 %) in premenopausal women was 5.49 (95 % CI 2.44–12.39) relative to women with the lowest breast density. In contrast, the risk in postmenopausal women without a history of PMH use was 3.02 (95 % CI 1.62–5.63) (p-heterogeneity = 0.17). Associations in premenopausal women were similar to those in postmenopausal women with current hormone use (p-heterogeneity = 0.86) or past PMH use (p-heterogeneity = 0.36). Among postmenopausal women with either current or past PMH use, dense breasts (≥50 %), were associated with increased breast cancer risk relative to women with lowest density (current PMH: OR = 4.50, 95 % CI 2.99–6.78; past PMH: OR = 3.71, 95 % CI 1.90–7.23). The magnitude of the association appeared to be stronger in postmenopausal women with current hormone use compared with postmenopausal women with past PMH use or postmenopausal women with no PMH history, but these differences did not reach statistical significance (p-heterogeneity = 0.23 and p-heterogeneity = 0.20, respectively). We observed no overall interaction between breast density, menopausal status, and PMH history (p-heterogeneity = 0.51).
Discussion
In this nested case–control study with 1,481 breast cancer cases and 2,779 matched controls, we found no differences in the association of breast density with breast cancer risk by a family history of breast cancer. Although the differences in associations by menopausal status/PMH use did not reach statistical significance, the magnitude of the association between breast density and breast cancer risk appeared to be strongest in premenopausal women and postmenopausal women currently taking hormones.
Our results examining the association of breast density and breast cancer according to family history are similar to previous reports [12–15]. Previous studies with 1,047 [13] and 1,164 [15] cases suggested that the combined effect of breast density and a family history on the risk of breast cancer is greater than the risk associated with each of the individual risk factors [13, 15]. Although we observed no significant interaction between family history and breast density on breast cancer risk, consistent with a previous study [15], women with a family history and high breast density are at the highest risk of breast cancer. Proliferation of epithelium and stroma is regulated by both estrogens and growth factors [18–21]. Heritability of the mammographic breast density [22, 23] could in part result from genes regulating the breast tissue growth and differentiation. Along with other known genes associated with the family history of breast cancer, those additional genetic factors in women with denser breasts could result in an increased cancer risk in women with the family history of breast cancer as compared with women without the history.
Recent work by Kerlikowske et al. reported significant differences in the association between breast density and breast cancer risk according to menopausal status/hormone use among 14,090 cases and 573,279 controls [11]. Although our results are consistent with these findings and suggest stronger association among premenopausal women and postmenopausal women currently taking hormones, the differences in our study were not statistically significant. It is possible that we were underpowered. Studies of the effects of hormone therapy on breast density consistently show an increase in breast density among postmenopausal women on hormone therapy [24–27]. However, this hormone therapy-driven increase in breast density does not entirely explain the increase in breast cancer risk [28]. The additive effect of PMH and high breast density on breast cancer risk could result from stimulation of a larger number of epithelial and stromal cells in denser breasts by hormones [3, 29] and, thus, higher potential for mutation and, subsequently, a greater breast cancer risk. This mechanism is consistent with results from our prior study which showed that women with high circulating hormone levels and high density were at the highest risk of breast cancer [3].
In conclusion, we investigated the association of breast density with breast cancer by a family history of breast cancer, menopausal status, and postmenopausal hormone therapy use. Our results show that the association of breast density with breast cancer risk is similar in women with and without a family history of breast cancer. Our findings, though not significant, suggest that breast density among premenopausal women and postmenopausal women currently using postmenopausal hormones may have a stronger association with breast cancer risk compared with postmenopausal women without history of hormone use.
References
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(10):798–808
Ginsburg OM, Martin LJ, Boyd NF (2008) Mammographic density, lobular involution, and risk of breast cancer. Br J Cancer 99(9):1369–1374
Tamimi RM, Byrne C, Colditz GA, Hankinson SE (2007) Endogenous hormone levels, mammographic density, and subsequent risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women. J Natl Cancer Inst 99(15):1178–1187
Harvey JA, Bovbjerg VE (2004) Quantitative assessment of mammographic breast density: relationship with breast cancer risk. Radiology 230(1):29–41
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(9):670–675
Byrne C, Schairer C, Wolfe J, Parekh N, Salane M, Brinton LA, Hoover R, Haile R (1995) Mammographic features and breast cancer risk: effects with time, age, and menopause status. J Natl Cancer Inst 87(21):1622–1629
Vacek PM, Geller BM (2004) A prospective study of breast cancer risk using routine mammographic breast density measurements. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 13(5):715–722
Brisson J, Morrison AS, Khalid N (1988) Mammographic parenchymal features and breast cancer in the breast cancer detection demonstration project. J Natl Cancer Inst 80(19):1534–1540
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 Biomark Prev 12(4):332–338
McCormack VA, dos Santos SilvaI (2006) Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 15(6):1159–1169
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(24):3830–3837
Saftlas AF, Hoover RN, Brinton LA, Szklo M, Olson DR, Salane M, Wolfe JN (1991) Mammographic densities and risk of breast cancer. Cancer 67(11):2833–2838
Brisson J (1991) Family history of breast cancer, mammographic features of breast tissue, and breast cancer risk. Epidemiology 2(6):440–444
Boyd NF, Lockwood GA, Martin LJ, Knight JA, Jong RA, Fishell E, Byng JW, Yaffe MJ, Tritchler DL (1999) Mammographic densities and risk of breast cancer among subjects with a family history of this disease. J Natl Cancer Inst 91(16):1404–1408
Martin LJ, Melnichouk O, Guo H, Chiarelli AM, Hislop TG, Yaffe MJ, Minkin S, Hopper JL, Boyd NF (2010) Family history, mammographic density, and risk of breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 19(2):456–463
Colditz GA, Hankinson SE (2005) The nurses’ health study: lifestyle and health among women. Nat Rev Cancer 5(5):388–396
Byng JW, Boyd NF, Little L, Lockwood G, Fishell E, Jong RA, Yaffe MJ (1996) Symmetry of projection in the quantitative analysis of mammographic images. Eur J Cancer Prev 5(5):319–327
Chan SK, Hill ME, Gullick WJ (2006) The role of the epidermal growth factor receptor in breast cancer. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia 11(1):3–11
Hankinson SE, Willett WC, Colditz GA, Hunter DJ, Michaud DS, Deroo B, Rosner B, Speizer FE, Pollak M (1998) Circulating concentrations of insulin-like growth factor-I and risk of breast cancer. Lancet 351(9113):1393–1396
LaMarca HL, Rosen JM (2007) Estrogen regulation of mammary gland development and breast cancer: Amphiregulin takes center stage. Breast Cancer Res 9(4):304
Russo J, Fernandez SV, Russo PA, Fernbaugh R, Sheriff FS, Lareef HM, Garber J, Russo IH (2006) 17-Beta-estradiol induces transformation and tumorigenesis in human breast epithelial cells. FASEB J 20(10):1622–1634
Boyd NF, Dite GS, Stone J, Gunasekara A, English DR, McCredie MR, Giles GG, Tritchler D, Chiarelli A, Yaffe MJ, Hopper JL (2002) Heritability of mammographic density, a risk factor for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 347(12):886–894
Kataoka M, Antoniou A, Warren R, Leyland J, Brown J, Audley T, Easton D (2009) Genetic models for the familial aggregation of mammographic breast density. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 18(4):1277–1284
Conner P, Svane G, Azavedo E, Soderqvist G, Carlstrom K, Graser T, Walter F, von Schoultz B (2004) Mammographic breast density, hormones, and growth factors during continuous combined hormone therapy. Fertil Steril 81(6):1617–1623
Greendale GA, Palla SL, Ursin G, Laughlin GA, Crandall C, Pike MC, Reboussin BA (2005) The association of endogenous sex steroids and sex steroid binding proteins with mammographic density: results from the postmenopausal estrogen/progestin interventions mammographic density study. Am J Epidemiol 162(9):826–834
Pettersen PC, Raundahl J, Loog M, Nielsen M, Tanko LB, Christiansen C (2008) Parallel assessment of the impact of different hormone replacement therapies on breast density by radiologist- and computer-based analyses of mammograms. Climacteric 11(2):135–143
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 Biomark Prev 11(11):1382–1388
Boyd NF, Martin LJ, Li Q, Sun L, Chiarelli AM, Hislop G, Yaffe MJ, Minkin S (2006) Mammographic density as a surrogate marker for the effects of hormone therapy on risk of breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 15(5):961–966
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 Biomark Prev 14(2):343–349
Acknowledgments
We thank the participants and staff of the Nurses’ Health Study cohort, for their valuable contributions. We thank the following state cancer registries for their help: AL, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, NE, NH, NJ, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, VA, WA, WY. The study sponsors had no role in the design of the study; the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; the writing of the manuscript; or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Financial support was received from Public Health Service Grants CA131332, CA087969, CA050385 from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, and Breast Cancer Research Foundation. Dr. Colditz is supported in part by an American Cancer Society Cissy Hornung Clinical Research Professorship.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Yaghjyan, L., Colditz, G.A., Rosner, B. et al. Mammographic breast density and breast cancer risk by menopausal status, postmenopausal hormone use and a family history of breast cancer. Cancer Causes Control 23, 785–790 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-012-9936-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-012-9936-7