Skip to main content

Table 3 Percentage dense volume versus dense volume measures in relation to breast cancer risk (bootstrap analysis results)

From: The effect of volumetric breast density on the risk of screen-detected and interval breast cancers: a cohort study

Total breast cancers Significance of the difference between coefficients in PDV and DV models Difference between coefficients in PDV and DV models 95% CI of difference between coefficients in PDV and DV models
 VDG vs VDG-like categories Non significant C2: 0.15 (-0.25 ; 0.56)
C3: 0.15 (-0.23 ; 0.52)
C4: -0.11 (-0.51 ; 0.27)
 Quartiles PDV vs DV Non significant Q2: 0.16 (-0.24 ; 0.54)
Q3: 0.21 (-0.17 ; 0.57)
Q4: -0.07 (-0.37 ; 0.24)
 Continuous PDV vs DV Non significant -0.07 (-0.15 ; 0.01)
Screen-detected cancers
 VDG vs VDG-like categories Non significant C2: -0.03 (-0.56 ; 0.46)
C3: -0.17 (-0.64 ; 0.28)
C4: -0.49 (-1.08 ; 0.07)
 Quartiles PDV vs DV Non significant Q2: -0.14 (-0.65 ; 0.32)
Q3: -0.14 (-0.62 ; 0.34)
Q3: -0.49 (-0.90 ; -0.12)
 Continuous PDV vs DV Significant, stronger for DV -0.13 (-0.24 ; -0.03)
Interval cancers
 VDG vs VDG-like categories Non significant (except for C2 and C3: stronger for PDV) C2: 0.73 (0.01 ; 1.56)
C3: 0.92 (0.26 ; 1.68)
C4: 0.58 (-0.06 ; 1.28)
 Quartiles PDV vs DV Significant, stronger for PDV Q2: 0.90 (0.21 ; 1.60)
Q3: 1.02 (0.40 ; 1.66)
Q3: 0.77 (0.26 ; 1.34)
 Continuous PDV vs DV non significant 0.01 (-0.11 ; 0.13)
  1. VDG Volpara density grade, PDV percentage dense volume, DV dense volume
  2. Significant: none of the bootstrap 95% CIs for differences between quartile (Q)2, Q3, or Q4 (or category (C)2, C3, or C4) contain zero, otherwise they were non-significant
  3. Bold text means that the difference between coefficients in PDV an DV models are significant