Skip to main content

Table 3 The association between breast measures and breast cancer risk

From: The combined effect of mammographic texture and density on breast cancer risk: a cohort study

Variables in the model HR (95% CI) HR (95% CI) HR (95% CI) HR (95% CI) p value for trend c-index (95% CI)
   per one SD Q2 Q3 Q4   
Model 1 DV 1.32 (1.18–1.48) 1.24 (0.87–1.78) 1.53 (1.08–2016) 1.85 (1.32–2.59) <0.001 0.56 (0.53–0.59)
Model 1a DV 1.32 (1.18–1.47) 1.40 (0.97–2.01) 1.75 (1.23–2.48) 1.98 (1.41–2.79) <0.001 0.62 (0.58–0.65)
Texture residuals (DV) a 1.38 (1.23–1.56) 1.68 (1.15–2.44) 2.40 (1.68–3.43) 2.69 (1.87–3.88) <0.001
Model 2 PDV 1.34 (1.20–1.50) 1.49 (1.03–2.15) 2.07 (1.46–2.96) 2.17 (1.51–3.12) <0.001 0.58 (0.54–0.61)
Model 2a PDV 1.36 (1.21–1.53) 1.50 (1.04–2.17) 2.00 (1.41–2.86) 2.15 (1.49–3.10) <0.001 0.60 (0.57–0.63)
Texture residuals (PDV) b 1.27 (1.13–1.42) 1.28 (0.90–1.82) 1.69 (1.21–2.37) 1.92 (1.37–2.70) <0.001
Model 3 Texture 1.46 (1.30–1.64) 1.69 (1.15–2.50) 2.65 (1.83–3.84) 3.16 (2.16–4.62) <0.001 0.61 (0.57–0.64)
  1. Difference c-index model 1 and 1a, p < 0.001; difference c-index model 2 and 2a, p = 0.054
  2. SD standard deviation, Q quartile, DV dense volume, PDV percentage dense volume
  3. aTexture residuals (DV): residuals of texture pattern scores regressed on natural logarithm (Ln) transformed DV using a linear regression model
  4. bTexture residuals (PDV): residuals of texture pattern scores regressed on Ln transformed PDV using a linear regression model