4.2 Article

Mammographic densities and the prevalence and incidence of histological types of benign breast disease

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER PREVENTION
卷 9, 期 1, 页码 15-24

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00008469-200002000-00003

关键词

benign breast disease; mammographic densities

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is now a large amount of evidence indicating that women with extensive areas of mammographic densities are 4-6 times more likely to develop breast cancer than those with little or no density in the mammogram, We have examined one potential biological explanation for this association by estimating the incidence of various histological types of benign breast disease in relation to mammographic density. We studied the large cohort of women taking part in the National Breast Screening Study (NBSS), a randomized trial of screening with mammography, Mammograms from subjects with biopsies (n = 423) and from a comparison group of subjects randomly selected from the NBSS (n = 465) were included, Histological slides from biopsied subjects (n = 353) were classified independently by the pathologists of the NBSS and by a review pathologist (H.M.J.). Mammographic density in more than 75% of the breast area was associated with an increased risk of incidence of hyperplasia without atypia, and of atypical hyperplasia and/or carcinoma in situ, The classifications of the review pathologist showed that, compared to women with no density, the relative risk of incident lesions for women with density in more than 75% of breast was 13.85 (95% CI 2.65-72.49) for hyperplasia, and 9.23 (95% CI 1.66-51.48) for atypical hyperplasia and/or carcinoma in situ. These findings suggest that the association between extensive mammographic density and breast cancer risk may, at least in part, be attributable to biological processes in the breast that give rise to these histological features that are known to be related to breast cancer risk. (C) 2000 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据