Table 4 Summary of studies of mammographic density and risk of second breast cancers
From: Mammographic density and breast cancer risk: current understanding and future prospects
| Results | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Authors, region (year) |
Study population |
Median follow-up |
Measurement of MD | Eventsb | Number |
HR (95% CI) | Adjustmentsa | Comments |
| Habel et al. [91], USA (2010) | 935 patients with DCIS | 8 years |
Planimeter Highest versus lowest quintile of dense area |
All Ips. |
228 164 | 1.8 (1.2 to 2.9) 1.7 (1.0 to 2.9) | Age, BMI, treatment, and diagnosis year | Similar HR in subgroups of age, BMI, treatment, and menopausal status |
| Cont. | 59 | 3.0 (1.3 to 6.9) | ||||||
| Hwang et al. [93], USA (2007) | 3,274 patients with DCIS | 39 months | BI-RADS High (3 or 4) versus low (1 or 2) | All inv. | 133 | 1.4 (0.9 to 2.1) | Age and radiation treatment | No interaction of density with radiation treatment |
| Ips. inv. | 83 | 1.0 (0.6 to 1.6) | ||||||
| Cont. inv. | 52 | 3.1 (1.6 to 6.1) | ||||||
| Habel et al. [90], USA (2004) | 334 patients with DCIS | 11 years | Planimetry >75% versus <25% PMD | All | 112 | 2.8 (1.3 to 6.1) | Age, BMI, and radiation treatment | No interaction with radiation treatment or menopausal Status |
| Ips. | 80 | 3.0 (1.2 to 7.5) | ||||||
| Cont. | 28 | 3.4 (0.7 to 16.2) | ||||||
| Cil et al. [79], Canada (2009) | 335 patients with invasive breast cancer | 8 years | Wolfe score High versus low Wolfe score | Ips. inv. | 34 | 5.7 (1.6 to 20.0) | Age, menopause, and radiation treatment | Association stronger in those who did not receive radiation treatment |
| Dist. inv. | 31 | No association (HR not given) | ||||||
| Park et al. [92], USA (2008) | 136 patients with invasive breast cancer | 7.7 years | Computer- assisted >75% versus <25% PMD | Ips. inv. | 19 | 3.4 (1.6 to 7.5) | BMI | |
| Cont./Dist. inv. | 25 | No association (HR not given) | ||||||