Advertisement

Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 26, Issue 11, pp 3472–3477 | Cite as

Breast Density in a Contemporary Cohort of Women With Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS)

  • Jessica C. Gooch
  • Jennifer Chun
  • Elianna Kaplowitz
  • Emma Kurz
  • Amber Guth
  • Jiyon Lee
  • Freya SchnabelEmail author
Breast Oncology

Abstract

Background

Mammographic breast density (MBD) is an independent risk factor for breast cancer. Information regarding the relationship of MBD and breast cancer biology in women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is currently lacking. This study aimed to examine the clinicopathologic characteristics of DCIS in women stratified by MBD.

Methods

A retrospective review was performed to identify women with pure DCIS who underwent preoperative mammography between 2010 and 2018. Clinicopathologic and demographic data were collected. For the purpose of analysis, MBD was categorized as “non-dense” (Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System [BI-RADS] density categories A and B) or “dense” (BI-RADS C and D) according to its identification in radiology reports.

Results

Of 3227 patients with a breast cancer diagnosis enrolled in the institutional Breast Cancer Database during the study period, 658 (20%) had pure DCIS. Of these 658 patients, 42% had non-dense breasts, and 58% had dense breasts. Most lesions were non-palpable (92%) and detected by mammography (84%). Patients with dense breasts were more likely to be younger at the time of diagnosis (p < 0.001), premenopausal (p < 0.001), and Asian (p = 0.018), and to have higher-grade disease (p = 0.006; Table 2). Family history, BRCA status, parity, mammogram frequency, palpability, method of presentation, lesion size, hormone receptor status, comedo histology, and recurrence did not differ significantly between the two groups (Table 1). The median follow-up period was 7.1 years.

Conclusion

Women with pure DCIS and higher MBD are more likely to be younger at the time of diagnosis, premenopausal, and Asian, and to present with higher-grade disease. Further research on the relationship of age, MBD, and tumor biology in DCIS is warranted.

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    AC Society. breast cancer facts and figures 2017–2018. Atlanta,: AC Society 2017, pp 1–44.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kumar S, Sacchini V. The surgical management of ductal carcinoma in situ. Breast J. 2010;16(Suppl 1):S49–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wells CJ, O’Donoghue C, Ojeda-Fournier H, Retallack HE, Esserman LJ. Evolving paradigm for imaging, diagnosis, and management of DCIS. J Am Coll Radiol. 2013;10:918–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    MacKenzie TA, Titus-Ernstoff L, Vacek PM, Geller B, Weiss JE, Goodrich ME, et al. Breast density in relation to risk of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast in women undergoing screening mammography. Cancer Causes Control. 2007;18:939–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sagara Y, Mallory MA, Wong S, Aydogan F, DeSantis S, Barry WT, et al. Survival benefit of breast surgery for low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ: a population-based cohort study. JAMA Surg. 2015;150:739–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yaghjyan L, Colditz GA, Collins LC, Schnitt SJ, Rosner B, Vachon C, et al. Mammographic breast density and subsequent risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women according to tumor characteristics. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103:1179–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Habel LA, Dignam JJ, Land SR, Salane M, Capra AM, Julian TB. Mammographic density and breast cancer after ductal carcinoma in situ. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96:1467–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ghosh K, Brandt KR, Reynolds C, Scott CG, Pankratz VS, Riehle DL, et al. Tissue composition of mammographically dense and non-dense breast tissue. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;131:267–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Huo CW, Chew G, Hill P, Huang D, Ingman W, Hodson L, et al. High mammographic density is associated with an increase in stromal collagen and immune cells within the mammary epithelium. Breast Cancer Res. 2015;17:79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Byström S, Eklund M, Hong MG, Fredolini C, Eriksson M, Czene K, et al. Affinity proteomic profiling of plasma for proteins associated to area-based mammographic breast density. Breast Cancer Res. 2018;20:14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Radiology ACo. ACR BI-RADS atlas. Mammography. 2013;121–140.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Checka CM, Chun JE, Schnabel FR, Lee J, Toth H. The relationship of mammographic density and age: implications for breast cancer screening. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;198:W292–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Boyd NF, Martin LJ, Yaffe MJ, Minkin S. Mammographic density and breast cancer risk: current understanding and future prospects. Breast Cancer Res. 2011;13:1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    del Carmen MG, Halpern EF, Kopans DB, Moy B, Moore RH, Goss PE, et al. Mammographic breast density and race. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188:1147–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Reinier KS, Vacek PM, Geller BM. Risk factors for breast carcinoma in situ versus invasive breast cancer in a prospective study of pre- and postmenopausal women. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2007;103:343–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sala E, Solomon L, Warren R, McCann J, Duffy S, Luben R, et al. Size, node status, and grade of breast tumours: association with mammographic parenchymal patterns. Eur Radiol. 1999;10:157–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Masarwah A, Auvinen P, Sudah M, Rautiainen S, Sutela A, Pelkonen O, et al. Very low mammographic breast density predicts poorer outcome in patients with invasive breast cancer. Eur Radiol. 2015;25:1875–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ding J, Warren R, Girling A, Thompson D, Easton D, et al. Mammographic density, estrogen receptor status, and other breast cancer tumor characteristics. Breast J. 2010;16:279–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Porter GJ, Evans AJ, Cornford EJ, Burrell HC, James JJ, Lee AH, et al. Influence of mammographic parenchymal pattern in screening-detected and interval invasive breast cancers on pathologic features, mammographic features, and patient survival. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188:676–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pang JM, Byrne DJ, Takano EA, Jene N, Petelin L, McKinley J, et al. Breast tissue composition and immunophenotype and its relationship with mammographic density in women at high risk of breast cancer. PLoS ONE. 2015;10:e0128861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    McCormack VA, dos Santos Silva I. Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006;15:1159–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ, Sun L, Stone J, Fishell E, et al. Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;2007:227–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fasching PA, Heusinger K, Loehberg CR, Wenkel E, Lux MP, Schrauder M,, et al. Influence of mammographic density on the diagnostic accuracy of tumor size assessment and association with breast cancer tumor characteristics. Eur J Radiol. 2006;60:398–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kuhl CK, Strobel K, Bieling H, Wardelmann E, Kuhn W, Maass N, et al. Impact of preoperative breast MR imaging and MR-guided surgery on diagnosis and surgical outcome of women with invasive breast cancer with and without DCIS component. Radiology. 2017;284:645–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Berg WA, Zhang Z, Lehrer D, Jong RA, Pisano ED, Barr RG, et al. Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk. JAMA. 2012;307:1394–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Weigel S, Hense HW, Heidrich J, Berkemeyer S, Heindel W, Heidinger O, et al. Digital mammography screening: does age influence the detection rates of low-, intermediate-, and high-grade ductal carcinoma in situ? Radiology. 2016;278:707–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Weigel S, Heindel W, Heidinger O, Berkemeyer S, Hense HW, et al. Digital mammography screening: association between detection rate and nuclear grade of ductal carcinoma in situ. Radiology. 2014;271:38–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Holm J, Humphreys K, Li J, Ploner A, Cheddad A, Eriksson M, , et al. Risk factors and tumor characteristics of interval cancers by mammographic density. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:1030–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL, White D, Finder CA, Taplin SH,, et al. Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:1081–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jessica C. Gooch
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jennifer Chun
    • 1
  • Elianna Kaplowitz
    • 1
  • Emma Kurz
    • 3
  • Amber Guth
    • 1
  • Jiyon Lee
    • 4
  • Freya Schnabel
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Division of Breast Surgical Oncology, Department of SurgeryNew York University Langone HealthNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of SurgeryUniversity of Rochester Medical CenterRochesterUSA
  3. 3.New York University School of MedicineNew YorkUSA
  4. 4.Department of RadiologyNew York University Langone HealthNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations