A review of the influence of mammographic density on breast cancer clinical and pathological phenotype

作者: Michael S. Shawky , Cecilia W. Huo , Michael A. Henderson , Andrew Redfern , Kara Britt

DOI: 10.1007/S10549-019-05300-1

关键词: Estrogen Receptor StatusContext (language use)Radiation therapyBreast cancerCarcinoma in situMammographyOncologyMedicineInternal medicineMass screeningRisk factors for breast cancer

摘要: It is well established that high mammographic density (MD), when adjusted for age and body mass index, one of the strongest known risk factors breast cancer (BC), also associates with higher incidence interval cancers in screening due to masking early abnormalities. Increasing research being undertaken determine underlying histological biochemical determinants MD their consequences BC pathogenesis, anticipating improved mechanistic insights may lead novel preventative or treatment interventions. At same time, technological advances digital contrast mammography are such validity well-established relationships needs be re-examined this context. With attention old versus new technologies, we conducted a literature review summarise between clinicopathologic features surrounding tissue on mammography, including associations biological inclusive subtype, implications clinical disease course encompassing relapse, progression, response survival. There reasonable evidence support positive (HMD) tumour size, lymph node positivity local relapse absence radiotherapy, but not HMD LVI, regional distant metastasis. Conflicting data exist location, grade, intrinsic receptor status, second primary survival, which need further confirmatory studies. We did identify any hold up involving newer imaging techniques were employed analysis.

参考文章(158)
C. W. Huo, G. L. Chew, K. L. Britt, W. V. Ingman, M. A. Henderson, J. L. Hopper, E. W. Thompson, Mammographic density—a review on the current understanding of its association with breast cancer Breast Cancer Research and Treatment. ,vol. 144, pp. 479- 502 ,(2014) , 10.1007/S10549-014-2901-2
S GARNETT, M WALLIS, G MORGAN, Do screen-detected lobular and ductal carcinoma present with different mammographic features? British Journal of Radiology. ,vol. 82, pp. 20- 27 ,(2009) , 10.1259/BJR/52846080
M. T. Mandelson, Breast Density as a Predictor of Mammographic Detection: Comparison of Interval- and Screen-Detected Cancers Journal of the National Cancer Institute. ,vol. 92, pp. 1081- 1087 ,(2000) , 10.1093/JNCI/92.13.1081
Norman F. Boyd, Olga Melnichouk, Lisa J. Martin, Greg Hislop, Anna M. Chiarelli, Martin J. Yaffe, Salomon Minkin, Mammographic Density, Response to Hormones, and Breast Cancer Risk Journal of Clinical Oncology. ,vol. 29, pp. 2985- 2992 ,(2011) , 10.1200/JCO.2010.33.7964
Carolyn Nickson, Anne M Kavanagh, Tumour size at detection according to different measures of mammographic breast density Journal of Medical Screening. ,vol. 16, pp. 140- 146 ,(2009) , 10.1258/JMS.2009.009054
Evis Sala, Ruth Warren, Jenny McCann, Stephen Duffy, Robert Luben, Nicholas Day, Mammographic Parenchymal Patterns and Breast Cancer Natural History—A Case-Control Study Acta Oncologica. ,vol. 40, pp. 461- 465 ,(2001) , 10.1080/028418601750288172
Golmohammadi P, Hassanzadeh J, Tahmasebi S, Moradzadeh R, Rajaee Fard A, A comparison of case-control and case-only designs to investigate gene-environment interactions using breast cancer data. Iranian Journal of Medical Sciences. ,vol. 37, pp. 112- 118 ,(2012)
Gillian Mitchell, Antonis C Antoniou, Ruth Warren, Susan Peock, Judith Brown, Russell Davies, Jenny Mattison, Margaret Cook, Iqbal Warsi, D Gareth Evans, Diana Eccles, Fiona Douglas, Joan Paterson, Shirley Hodgson, Louise Izatt, Trevor Cole, Lucy Burgess, EMBRACE collaborators, Ros Eeles, Douglas F Easton, None, Mammographic Density and Breast Cancer Risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers Cancer Research. ,vol. 66, pp. 1866- 1872 ,(2006) , 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-3368