Jingmei Li

Mammographic Density Phenotypes and Risk of Breast Cancer: A Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND Fibroglandular breast tissue appears dense on mammogram, whereas fat appears nondense. It is unclear whether absolute or percentage dense area more strongly predicts breast cancer risk and whether absolute nondense area is independently associated with risk. METHODS We conducted a meta-analysis of 13 case-control studies providing results from logistic regressions for associations between one standard deviation (SD) increments in mammographic density phenotypes and breast cancer risk. We used random-effects models to calculate pooled odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). All tests were two-sided with P less than .05 considered to be statistically significant. RESULTS Among premenopausal women (n = 1776 case patients; n = 2834 control subjects), summary odds ratios were 1.37 (95% CI = 1.29 to 1.47) for absolute dense area, 0.78 (95% CI = 0.71 to 0.86) for absolute nondense area, and 1.52 (95% CI = 1.39 to 1.66) for percentage dense area when pooling estimates adjusted for age, body mass index, and parity. Corresponding odds ratios among postmenopausal women (n = 6643 case patients; n = 11187 control subjects) were 1.38 (95% CI = 1.31 to 1.44), 0.79 (95% CI = 0.73 to 0.85), and 1.53 (95% CI = 1.44 to 1.64). After additional adjustment for absolute dense area, associations between absolute nondense area and breast cancer became attenuated or null in several studies and summary odds ratios became 0.82 (95% CI = 0.71 to 0.94; P heterogeneity = .02) for premenopausal and 0.85 (95% CI = 0.75 to 0.96; P heterogeneity < .01) for postmenopausal women. CONCLUSIONS The results suggest that percentage dense area is a stronger breast cancer risk factor than absolute dense area. Absolute nondense area was inversely associated with breast cancer risk, but it is unclear whether the association is independent of absolute dense area.

Common variants in ZNF365 are associated with both mammographic density and breast cancer risk

High-percent mammographic density adjusted for age and body mass index is one of the strongest risk factors for breast cancer. We conducted a meta analysis of five genome-wide association studies of percent mammographic density and report an association with rs10995190 in ZNF365 (combined P = 9.6 × 10−10). Common variants in ZNF365 have also recently been associated with susceptibility to breast cancer.

CHEK2*1100delC Heterozygosity in Women With Breast Cancer Associated With Early Death, Breast Cancer–Specific Death, and Increased Risk of a Second Breast Cancer

PURPOSE We tested the hypotheses that CHEK2*1100delC heterozygosity is associated with increased risk of early death, breast cancer-specific death, and risk of a second breast cancer in women with a first breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS From 22 studies participating in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium, 25,571 white women with invasive breast cancer were genotyped for CHEK2*1100delC and observed for up to 20 years (median, 6.6 years). We examined risk of early death and breast cancer-specific death by estrogen receptor status and risk of a second breast cancer after a first breast cancer in prospective studies. RESULTS CHEK2*1100delC heterozygosity was found in 459 patients (1.8%). In women with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer, multifactorially adjusted hazard ratios for heterozygotes versus noncarriers were 1.43 (95% CI, 1.12 to 1.82; log-rank P = .004) for early death and 1.63 (95% CI, 1.24 to 2.15; log-rank P < .001) for breast cancer-specific death. In all women, hazard ratio for a second breast cancer was 2.77 (95% CI, 2.00 to 3.83; log-rank P < .001) increasing to 3.52 (95% CI, 2.35 to 5.27; log-rank P < .001) in women with estrogen receptor-positive first breast cancer only. CONCLUSION Among women with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer, CHEK2*1100delC heterozygosity was associated with a 1.4-fold risk of early death, a 1.6-fold risk of breast cancer-specific death, and a 3.5-fold risk of a second breast cancer. This is one of the few examples of a genetic factor that influences long-term prognosis being documented in an extensive series of women with breast cancer.

Mammographic Density Reduction Is a Prognostic Marker of Response to Adjuvant Tamoxifen Therapy in Postmenopausal Patients With Breast Cancer

PURPOSE Tamoxifen treatment is associated with a reduction in mammographic density and an improved survival. However, the extent to which change in mammographic density during adjuvant tamoxifen therapy can be used to measure response to treatment is unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS Overall, 974 postmenopausal patients with breast cancer who had both a baseline and a follow-up mammogram were eligible for analysis. On the basis of treatment information abstracted from medical records, 474 patients received tamoxifen treatment and 500 did not. Mammographic density was measured by using an automated thresholding method and expressed as absolute dense area. Change in mammographic density was calculated as percentage change from baseline. Survival analysis was performed by using delayed-entry Cox proportional hazards regression models, with death as a result of breast cancer as the end point. Analyses were adjusted for a range of patient and tumor characteristics. RESULTS During a 15-year follow-up, 121 patients (12.4%) died from breast cancer. Women treated with tamoxifen who experienced a relative density reduction of more than 20% between baseline and first follow-up mammogram had a reduced risk of death as a result of breast cancer of 50% (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.93) compared with women with stable mammographic density. In the no-tamoxifen group, there was no statistically significant association between mammographic density change and survival. The survival advantage was not observed when absolute dense areas at baseline or follow-up were evaluated separately. CONCLUSION A decrease in mammographic density after breast cancer diagnosis appears to serve as a prognostic marker for improved long-term survival in patients receiving adjuvant tamoxifen, and these data should be externally validated.

Common Breast Cancer Susceptibility Variants in LSP1 and RAD51L1 Are Associated with Mammographic Density Measures that Predict Breast Cancer Risk

Background: Mammographic density adjusted for age and body mass index (BMI) is a heritable marker of breast cancer susceptibility. Little is known about the biologic mechanisms underlying the association between mammographic density and breast cancer risk. We examined whether common low-penetrance breast cancer susceptibility variants contribute to interindividual differences in mammographic density measures. Methods: We established an international consortium (DENSNP) of 19 studies from 10 countries, comprising 16,895 Caucasian women, to conduct a pooled cross-sectional analysis of common breast cancer susceptibility variants in 14 independent loci and mammographic density measures. Dense and nondense areas, and percent density, were measured using interactive-thresholding techniques. Mixed linear models were used to assess the association between genetic variants and the square roots of mammographic density measures adjusted for study, age, case status, BMI, and menopausal status. Results: Consistent with their breast cancer associations, the C-allele of rs3817198 in LSP1 was positively associated with both adjusted dense area (P = 0.00005) and adjusted percent density (P = 0.001), whereas the A-allele of rs10483813 in RAD51L1 was inversely associated with adjusted percent density (P = 0.003), but not with adjusted dense area (P = 0.07). Conclusion: We identified two common breast cancer susceptibility variants associated with mammographic measures of radiodense tissue in the breast gland. Impact: We examined the association of 14 established breast cancer susceptibility loci with mammographic density phenotypes within a large genetic consortium and identified two breast cancer susceptibility variants, LSP1-rs3817198 and RAD51L1-rs10483813, associated with mammographic measures and in the same direction as the breast cancer association. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 21(7); 1156–. ©2012 AACR.

High-throughput mammographic-density measurement: a tool for risk prediction of breast cancer

IntroductionMammographic density (MD) is a strong, independent risk factor for breast cancer, but measuring MD is time consuming and reader dependent. Objective MD measurement in a high-throughput fashion would enable its wider use as a biomarker for breast cancer. We use a public domain image-processing software for the fully automated analysis of MD and penalized regression to construct a measure that mimics a well-established semiautomated measure (Cumulus). We also describe measures that incorporate additional features of mammographic images for improving the risk associations of MD and breast cancer risk.MethodsWe randomly partitioned our dataset into a training set for model building (733 cases, 748 controls) and a test set for model assessment (765 cases, 747 controls). The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (r) was used to compare the MD measurements by Cumulus and our automated measure, which mimics Cumulus. The likelihood ratio test was used to validate the performance of logistic regression models for breast cancer risk, which included our measure capturing additional information in mammographic images.ResultsWe observed a high correlation between the Cumulus measure and our measure mimicking Cumulus (r = 0.884; 95% CI, 0.872 to 0.894) in an external test set. Adding a variable, which includes extra information to percentage density, significantly improved the fit of the logistic regression model of breast cancer risk (P = 0.0002).ConclusionsOur results demonstrate the potential to facilitate the integration of mammographic density measurements into large-scale research studies and subsequently into clinical practice.

Genome-wide association study identifies multiple loci associated with both mammographic density and breast cancer risk

Mammographic density reflects the amount of stromal and epithelial tissues in relation to adipose tissue in the breast and is a strong risk factor for breast cancer. Here we report the results from meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of three mammographic density phenotypes: dense area, non-dense area and percent density in up to 7,916 women in stage 1 and an additional 10,379 women in stage 2. We identify genome-wide significant (P<5×10−8) loci for dense area (AREG, ESR1, ZNF365, LSP1/TNNT3, IGF1, TMEM184B, SGSM3/MKL1), non-dense area (8p11.23) and percent density (PRDM6, 8p11.23, TMEM184B). Four of these regions are known breast cancer susceptibility loci, and four additional regions were found to be associated with breast cancer (P<0.05) in a large meta-analysis. These results provide further evidence of a shared genetic basis between mammographic density and breast cancer and illustrate the power of studying intermediate quantitative phenotypes to identify putative disease susceptibility loci.

Automated Measurement of Volumetric Mammographic Density: A Tool for Widespread Breast Cancer Risk Assessment

Introduction: Mammographic density is a strong risk factor for breast cancer and an important determinant of screening sensitivity, but its clinical utility is hampered due to the lack of objective and automated measures. We evaluated the performance of a fully automated volumetric method (Volpara). Methods: A prospective cohort study included 41,102 women attending mammography screening, of whom 206 were diagnosed with breast cancer after a median follow-up of 15.2 months. Percent and absolute dense volumes were estimated from raw digital mammograms. Genotyping was performed in a subset of the cohort (N = 2,122). We examined the agreement by side and view and compared density distributions across different mammography systems. We also studied associations with established density determinants and breast cancer risk. Results: The method showed good agreement by side and view, and distributions of percent and absolute dense volume were similar across mammography systems. Volumetric density was positively associated with nulliparity, age at first birth, hormone use, benign breast disease, and family history of breast cancer, and negatively with age and postmenopausal status. Associations were also observed with rs10995190 in the ZNF365 gene (P < 1.0 × 10−6) and breast cancer risk [HR for the highest vs. lowest quartile, 2.93; 95% confidence interval, 1.73–4.96 and 1.63 (1.10–2.42) for percent and absolute dense volume, respectively]. Conclusions: In a high-throughput setting, Volpara performs well and in accordance with the behavior of established density measures. Impact: Automated measurement of volumetric mammographic density is a promising tool for widespread breast cancer risk assessment. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 23(9); 1764–72. ©2014 AACR.

Mammographic Breast Density and Breast Cancer: Evidence of a Shared Genetic Basis

Percent mammographic breast density (PMD) is a strong heritable risk factor for breast cancer. However, the pathways through which this risk is mediated are still unclear. To explore whether PMD and breast cancer have a shared genetic basis, we identified genetic variants most strongly associated with PMD in a published meta-analysis of five genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and used these to construct risk scores for 3,628 breast cancer cases and 5,190 controls from the UK2 GWAS of breast cancer. The signed per-allele effect estimates of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) were multiplied with the respective allele counts in the individual and summed over all SNPs to derive the risk score for an individual. These scores were included as the exposure variable in a logistic regression model with breast cancer case-control status as the outcome. This analysis was repeated using 10 different cutoff points for the most significant density SNPs (1%-10% representing 5,222-50,899 SNPs). Permutation analysis was also conducted across all 10 cutoff points. The association between risk score and breast cancer was significant for all cutoff points from 3% to 10% of top density SNPs, being most significant for the 6% (2-sided P = 0.002) to 10% (P = 0.001) cutoff points (overall permutation P = 0.003). Women in the top 10% of the risk score distribution had a 31% increased risk of breast cancer [OR = 1.31; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.08-1.59] compared with women in the bottom 10%. Together, our results show that PMD and breast cancer have a shared genetic basis that is mediated through a large number of common variants.

Risk Factors and Tumor Characteristics of Interval Cancers by Mammographic Density

PURPOSE To compare tumor characteristics and risk factors of interval breast cancers and screen-detected breast cancers, taking mammographic density into account. PATIENTS AND METHODS Women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer from 2001 to 2008 in Stockholm, Sweden, with data on tumor characteristics (n = 4,091), risk factors, and mammographic density (n = 1,957) were included. Logistic regression was used to compare interval breast cancers with screen-detected breast cancers, overall and by highest and lowest quartiles of percent mammographic density. RESULTS Compared with screen-detected breast cancers, interval breast cancers in nondense breasts (≤ 20% mammographic density) were significantly more likely to exhibit lymph node involvement (odds ratio [OR], 3.55; 95% CI, 1.74 to 7.13) and to be estrogen receptor negative (OR, 4.05; 95% CI, 2.24 to 7.25), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive (OR, 5.17; 95% CI, 1.64 to 17.01), progesterone receptor negative (OR, 2.63; 95% CI, 1.58 to 4.38), and triple negative (OR, 5.33; 95% CI, 1.21 to 22.46). In contrast, interval breast cancers in dense breasts (> 40.9% mammographic density) were less aggressive than interval breast cancers in nondense breasts (overall difference, P = .008) and were phenotypically more similar to screen-detected breast cancers. Risk factors differentially associated with interval breast cancer relative to screen-detected breast cancer after adjusting for age and mammographic density were family history of breast cancer (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.70), current use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT; OR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.38 to 2.44), and body mass index more than 25 kg/m(2) (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.82). CONCLUSION Interval breast cancers in women with low mammographic density have the most aggressive phenotype. The effect of HRT on interval breast cancer risk is not fully explained by mammographic density. Family history is associated with interval breast cancers, possibly indicating disparate genetic background of screen-detected breast cancers and interval breast cancers.