Skip to main content

Table 3 Summary of studies of the association of mammographic density and tumor characteristics

From: Mammographic density and breast cancer risk: current understanding and future prospects

    

Association with

 

Authors, region

(year)

Design

Sample size

Measurement

of MD

ER status/phenotypea

Sizea, b

Nodal

statusa, b

Adjustmentsc

Yaghjyan et al. [70], USA (2011)

Nested case control

1,042 cases 1,794 controls

Computer-assisted

Case control: Increased risk of ER+ and ER- tumors (greater for ER-) Increased risk of PR+ and PR- and HER2- and HER2+ tumors

Increased risk for tumors >2 cm but not for tumors <2 cm

Increased risk with node+ and node- disease

Age, BMI, age at menarche, age at first birth, parity, age at menopause, HRT use, family history, history of benign breast disease, alcohol intake, and smoking

Conroy et al. [71], USA (2011)

Nested case control

607 cases 667 controls

Computer- assisted

Case control: Increased risk of ER+ tumors only Case only:

ER+ > PMD than ER- cases

n/a

n/a

Age, ethnicity, BMI, parity, age at first birth, age at menarche, menopausal status, HRT use, and family history

Ding et al. [72],

Europe (2010)

Nested case control

370 cases 1,904 controls

Computer- assisted

Case control: Increased risk of ER+ tumors only

Increased risk for tumors of all sizes

Increased risk with node+ and node- disease

Age

    

Case only:

ER+ > PMD than ER- cases

No association

No association

 

Olsen et al. [73], Europe (2009)

Cohort

694 cases 48,052 total

Mixed/dense versus fatty

Increased risk of ER+ and ER- tumors (greater for ER+)

n/a

n/a

Age

Ziv et al. [74], USA (2004)

Cohort

701 cases 44,811 total

BI-RADS

Increased risk of ER+ and ER- tumors

n/a

n/a

Age, HRT use, BMI, parity, family history, menopause, and race

Ma et al. [75], USA (2009)

Case control

479 cases 376 controls

Computer-assisted

Case control: Increased risk of ER+/PR+, ER-/PR-, HER2-, luminal A, and triple-negative tumorsd Case analysis: Molecular subtyped: no association

n/a

n/a

Age, family history, BMI, age at menarche, parity, age at first birth, menopause, and HRT use

Gierach et al. [76], Europe (2010 abstract)

Case only

227 cases

Computer- assisted

No significant difference in PMD between luminal A, luminal B, HER2+, basal-like, or unclassified tumorsd

n/a

n/a

Not available (abstract only)

Arora et al. [77], USA (2010)

Case only

1,323 cases

BI-RADS

Molecular subtype: no association

No association

No association

Age

Yang et al. [78], USA (2008)

Case only

198 cases

BI-RADS

Molecular subtyped: no association

n/a

n/a

None

Cil et al. [79], Canada (2009)

Case only

335 cases

Wolfe score

No association

No association

No association

None

Nickson and Kavanagh [86], Australia (2009)

Case only

1,348 cases

Semi- automated

n/a

No association

n/a

Age, HRT use, and family history

Ghosh et al. [80], USA (2008)

Case only

286 cases

Computer- assisted

No association

No association

n/a

Age, parity, BMI, family history, and HRT use

Porter et al. [87], Europe (2007)

Case only

759 cases

BI-RADS

n/a

Positive (screen- detected)

No association

None

Fasching et al. [81], Europe (2006)

Case only

434 cases

BI-RADS

No association

Negative

No association

None

Aiello et al. [82], USA (2005)

Case only

546 cases

BI-RADS

No association

Positive

Positive

Age, BMI, menopause, and age at first birth

Morishita et al. [83], Japan (2005)

Case only

163 cases

BI-RADS

No association

No association

n/a

None

Roubidoux et al. [84], USA (2004)

Case only

121 cases

BI-RADS

No association

Positive

No association

Age

Sala et al. [88], Europe (2000)

Nested case control

875 cases

Wolfe

n/a

Positive

Positive

None

Hinton et al. [85], Europe (1985)

Case only

337 cases

Wolfe

DY pattern associated with greater frequency of ER+ versus ER- tumors

n/a

n/a

None

Boyd et al. [89], Canada (1982)

Case only

183 cases

Wolfe

n/a

No association

No association

None

  1. aNo association: association is not statistically significant. bPositive: higher percent mammographic density (PMD) associated with higher tumor size or higher frequency of positive nodal status (node+); negative (inverse) association: higher PMD associated with smaller tumor size or lower frequency of positive nodal status (node+). cFactors included in the analysis of risk associated with mammographic density or of the association of mammographic density with tumor characteristics. dMolecular subtypes determined by immunohistochemistry. BI-RADS, Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System; BMI, body mass index; DY, dysplastic; ER, estrogen receptor; HRT, hormone replacement therapy; MD, mammographic density; n/a: not assessed; PR, progesterone receptor.