Purpose:
To evaluate common breast tumor prognostic characteristics, including estrogen receptor (ER) status, grade, size, and method of detection, in relationship to mammographic density.
Materials And Methods:
The study involved 121 women who had negative results at both screening mammography and breast physical examination within 17 months before a diagnosis of breast cancer. Mammographic density was classified according to Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System patterns 1 through 4 (where 1 indicates a fatty breast and 4 indicates a dense breast). Axillary nodal status and tumor histologic ER status, histologic grade, size, stage, and method of detection (mammography alone, palpation alone, or both palpation and mammography) were analyzed by density category and tested for statistically significant differences across categories by using analysis of variance.
Results:
Statistically significant differences (P <.05) by density category were found for the following variables: ER positivity (15 of 15 tumors in category 1 breasts, 32 of 41 tumors in category 2 breasts, 37 of 49 tumors in category 3 breasts, and eight of 16 tumors in category 4 breasts were ER positive), occurrence of grade 1 tumors (eight, 11, 19, and four tumors in category 1, category 2, category 3, and category 4 breasts, respectively, were grade 1), mean tumor size (11.3, 13.0, 14.7, and 19.7 mm for category 1, category 2, category 3, and category 4 breasts, respectively), detection with mammography alone (13, 31, 36, and four tumors in category 1, category 2, category 3, and category 4 breasts, respectively, were detected with mammography alone), and occurrence of stage I tumors (10, 25, 28, and five tumors in category 1, category 2, category 3, and category 4 breasts, respectively, were stage I).
Conclusion:
In women with negative results at clinical and mammographic screening within 17 months before breast tumor detection, subsequently diagnosed cancers tend to be ER negative, of higher grade, and larger in size in those with dense tissue patterns than in those with fat patterns.
Citing Articles
Accuracy of abbreviated magnetic resonance compared to 3-dimensional mammography and ultrasound in early detection of breast cancer.
Garwany S, Gad A, Mansour S, Al-Shatouri M, Alshafeiy T, AlSerafi A
Radiol Med. 2025; .
PMID: 40072806
DOI: 10.1007/s11547-025-01983-3.
Developing a nomogram prediction model to enhance diagnostic accuracy of supplemental ultrasound post-negative mammography.
Li C, Luo Y, Jiang Y, Wu X, Li Q
Medicine (Baltimore). 2025; 103(52):e41149.
PMID: 39969297
PMC: 11688032.
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000041149.
Updates in Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis.
Spear G, Lee K, DePersia A, Lienhoop T, Saha P
Curr Treat Options Oncol. 2024; 25(11):1451-1460.
PMID: 39466539
DOI: 10.1007/s11864-024-01271-8.
Clinical application and effect evaluation of acupoint thread embedding therapy and traditional Chinese medicine treatment based on menstrual cycle characteristics in the management of breast hyperplasia: An observational study.
Tao F, Hao Y, Wang D, Zhang W, Wang F
Medicine (Baltimore). 2024; 103(26):e38502.
PMID: 38941407
PMC: 11466131.
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000038502.
The ability of digital breast tomosynthesis to reduce additional examinations in older women.
Gharaibeh M, Alfwares A, Elobeid E, Khasawneh R, Rousan L, El-Heis M
Front Med (Lausanne). 2023; 10:1276434.
PMID: 38076239
PMC: 10702740.
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1276434.
Correlation of Breast Density Grade on Mammogram With Diagnosed Breast Cancer: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study.
Sajjad B, Farooqi N, Rehman B, Khalid I, Urooj N, Sajjad S
Cureus. 2022; 14(7):e27028.
PMID: 35989768
PMC: 9386336.
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.27028.
Diagnostic Efficacy across Dense and Non-Dense Breasts during Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Ultrasound Assessment for Recalled Women.
Hadadi I, Clarke J, Rae W, McEntee M, Vincent W, Ekpo E
Diagnostics (Basel). 2022; 12(6).
PMID: 35741287
PMC: 9222054.
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12061477.
Multimodality Imaging of Breast Parenchymal Density and Correlation with Risk Assessment.
Wengert G, Helbich T, Leithner D, Morris E, Baltzer P, Pinker K
Curr Breast Cancer Rep. 2022; 11(1):23-33.
PMID: 35496471
PMC: 9044508.
DOI: 10.1007/s12609-019-0302-6.
Personalized Screening for Breast Cancer: Rationale, Present Practices, and Future Directions.
Allweis T, Hermann N, Berenstein-Molho R, Guindy M
Ann Surg Oncol. 2021; 28(8):4306-4317.
PMID: 33398646
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-020-09426-1.
Mammography features for early markers of aggressive breast cancer subtypes and tumor characteristics: A population-based cohort study.
Tan P, Ali M, Eriksson M, Hall P, Humphreys K, Czene K
Int J Cancer. 2020; 148(6):1351-1359.
PMID: 32976625
PMC: 7891615.
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.33309.
A review of the influence of mammographic density on breast cancer clinical and pathological phenotype.
Shawky M, Huo C, Henderson M, Redfern A, Britt K, Thompson E
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2019; 177(2):251-276.
PMID: 31177342
DOI: 10.1007/s10549-019-05300-1.
Affibody-Indocyanine Green Based Contrast Agent for Photoacoustic and Fluorescence Molecular Imaging of B7-H3 Expression in Breast Cancer.
Bam R, Laffey M, Nottberg K, Lown P, Hackel B, Wilson K
Bioconjug Chem. 2019; 30(6):1677-1689.
PMID: 31082216
PMC: 6745046.
DOI: 10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.9b00239.
Localized mammographic density is associated with interval cancer and large breast cancer: a nested case-control study.
Strand F, Azavedo E, Hellgren R, Humphreys K, Eriksson M, Shepherd J
Breast Cancer Res. 2019; 21(1):8.
PMID: 30670066
PMC: 6341532.
DOI: 10.1186/s13058-019-1099-y.
Breast density implications and supplemental screening.
Vourtsis A, Berg W
Eur Radiol. 2018; 29(4):1762-1777.
PMID: 30255244
PMC: 6420861.
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-018-5668-8.
Mammographic density and breast cancer risk in breast screening assessment cases and women with a family history of breast cancer.
Duffy S, Morrish O, Allgood P, Black R, Gillan M, Willsher P
Eur J Cancer. 2017; 88:48-56.
PMID: 29190506
PMC: 5768323.
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2017.10.022.
Abbreviated MRI Protocols for Detecting Breast Cancer in Women with Dense Breasts.
Chen S, Huang M, Shen Y, Liu C, Xu C
Korean J Radiol. 2017; 18(3):470-475.
PMID: 28458599
PMC: 5390616.
DOI: 10.3348/kjr.2017.18.3.470.
Breast parenchymal patterns in processed versus raw digital mammograms: A large population study toward assessing differences in quantitative measures across image representations.
Gastounioti A, Oustimov A, Keller B, Pantalone L, Hsieh M, Conant E
Med Phys. 2016; 43(11):5862.
PMID: 27806604
PMC: 5055533.
DOI: 10.1118/1.4963810.
Update on new technologies in digital mammography.
Patterson S, Roubidoux M
Int J Womens Health. 2014; 6:781-8.
PMID: 25152634
PMC: 4140703.
DOI: 10.2147/IJWH.S49332.
Cryosurgery of breast cancer.
Niu L, Zhou L, Xu K
Gland Surg. 2014; 1(2):111-8.
PMID: 25083433
PMC: 4115688.
DOI: 10.3978/j.issn.2227-684X.2012.08.01.
Association of mammographic density with pathologic findings.
Ahmadinejad N, Movahedinia S, Movahedinia S, Shahriari M
Iran Red Crescent Med J. 2014; 15(12):e16698.
PMID: 24693404
PMC: 3955519.
DOI: 10.5812/ircmj.16698.