Do mammographic tumor features in breast cancer relate to breast density and invasiveness, tumor size, and axillary lymph node involvement?

Acta Radiologica

Volumn 56, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 536-544

  Sartor, Hanna ^a   Borgquist, Signe ^a,b   Hartman, Linda ^a,c   Olsson, Åsa ^a   Jawdat, Faith ^a   Zackrisson, Sophia ^a  

^a LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b LUND UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^c South Swedish Regional   (Sweden)

Author keywords

adults; Breast; epidemiology; mammography; neoplasms primary; pathology

Indexed keywords

BIOMINERALIZATION; BODY FLUIDS; BONE; DECISION MAKING; DISEASES; EPIDEMIOLOGY; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICAL IMAGING; PATHOLOGY; TUMORS;

ADULTS; AXILLARY LYMPH NODES; BREAST; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; COMBINED INFORMATIONS; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; LOGISTIC REGRESSIONS; NEOPLASMS - PRIMARY;

DIAGNOSIS;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AXILLARY LYMPH NODE; BREAST CANCER; BREAST DENSITY; COHORT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGE ANALYSIS; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; POPULATION RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; TUMOR INVASION; TUMOR VOLUME; AXILLA; BREAST; BREAST TUMOR; LYMPH NODE; LYMPH NODE METASTASIS; MASS SCREENING; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; RADIOGRAPHY; RISK; SWEDEN;

AGED; AXILLA; BREAST; BREAST NEOPLASMS; COHORT STUDIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; LYMPH NODES; LYMPHATIC METASTASIS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM INVASIVENESS; ODDS RATIO; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SWEDEN; TUMOR BURDEN;

EID: 84930913695     PISSN: 02841851     EISSN: 16000455     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0284185114532081     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. 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: 1159-1169.
2. Olsen AH, Bihrmann K, Jensen MB, et al. Breast density and outcome of mammography screening: a cohort study. Br J Cancer 2009; 100: 1205-1208.
3. Ciatto S, Visioli C, Paci E, et al. Breast density as a determinant of interval cancer at mammographic screening. Br J Cancer 2004; 90: 393-396.
4. Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL, et al. Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000; 92: 1081-1087.
5. Luck AA, Evans AJ, James JJ, et al. Breast carcinoma with basal phenotype: mammographic findings. Am J Roentgenol 2008; 191: 346-351.
6. De Nunzio MC, Evans AJ, Pinder SE, et al. Correlations between the mammographic features of screen detected invasive breast cancer and pathological prognostic factors. Breast 1997; 6: 146-149.
7. Evans AJ, Pinder SE, James JJ, et al. Is mammographic spiculation an independent, good prognostic factor in screening-detected invasive breast cancer? Am J Roentgenol 2006; 187: 1377-1380.
8. Tabar L, Tony Chen HH, Amy Yen MF, et al. Mammographic tumor features can predict long-term outcomes reliably in women with 1-14-mm invasive breast carcinoma. Cancer 2004; 101: 1745-1759.
9. Alexander MC, Yankaskas BC, Biesemier KW,. Association of stellate mammographic pattern with survival in small invasive breast tumors. Am J Roentgenol 2006; 187: 29-37.
10. Thurfjell E, Thurfjell MG, Lindgren A,. Mammographic finding as predictor of survival in 1-9 mm invasive breast cancers. Worse prognosis for cases presenting as calcifications alone. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2001; 67: 177-180.
11. James JJ, Evans AJ, Pinder SE, et al. Is the presence of mammographic comedo calcification really a prognostic factor for small screen-detected invasive breast cancers? Clin Radiol 2003; 58: 54-62.
12. Manjer J, Elmstahl S, Janzon L, et al. Invitation to a population-based cohort study: differences between subjects recruited using various strategies. Scand J Public Health 2002; 30: 103-112.
13. Berglund G, Elmstahl S, Janzon L, et al. The Malmo Diet and Cancer Study. Design and feasibility. J Intern Med 1993; 233: 45-51.
14. Manjer J, Carlsson S, Elmstahl S, et al. The Malmo Diet and Cancer Study: representativity, cancer incidence and mortality in participants and non-participants. Eur J Cancer Prev 2001; 10: 489-499.
15. Borgquist S, Djerbi S, Ponten F, et al. HMG-CoA reductase expression in breast cancer is associated with a less aggressive phenotype and influenced by anthropometric factors. Int J Cancer 2008; 123: 1146-1153.
16. Lagerlund M, Sontrop J, Zackrisson S,. Do reproductive and hormonal risk factors for breast cancer associate with attendance at mammography screening? Cancer Causes Control 2013; 24: 1687-1694.
17. ACR. American College of Radiology. See http://www.acr.org/Quality-Safety/Resources/BIRADS/Mammography (accessed 12 February 2013).
18. Porter GJ, Evans AJ, Cornford EJ, et al. Influence of mammographic parenchymal pattern in screening-detected and interval invasive breast cancers on pathologic features, mammographic features, and patient survival. Am J Roentgenol 2007; 188: 676-683.
19. Andersson I, Ikeda DM, Zackrisson S, et al. Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of breast cancer visibility and BIRADS classification in a population of cancers with subtle mammographic findings. Europ Radiol 2008; 18: 2817-2825.
20. Ghosh K, Brandt KR, Reynolds C, et al. Tissue composition of mammographically dense and non-dense breast tissue. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012; 131: 267-275.
21. Li T, Sun L, Miller N, et al. The association of measured breast tissue characteristics with mammographic density and other risk factors for breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2005; 14: 343-349.
22. Boyd NF, Martin LJ, Yaffe MJ, et al. Mammographic density and breast cancer risk: current understanding and future prospects. Breast Cancer Res 2011; 13: 223-223.
23. Pietras K, Ostman A,. Hallmarks of cancer: interactions with the tumor stroma. Exp Cell Res 2010; 316: 1324-1331.
24. Franquet T, De Miguel C, Cozcolluela R, et al. Spiculated lesions of the breast: mammographic-pathologic correlation. Radiographics 1993; 13: 841-852.
25. Harvey JA, Gard CC, Miglioretti DL, et al. Reported mammographic density: film-screen versus digital acquisition. Radiology 2013; 266: 752-758.
26. Berg WA, Campassi C, Langenberg P, et al. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: inter- and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment. Am J Roentgenol 2000; 174: 1769-1777.
27. Ciatto S, Houssami N, Apruzzese A, et al. Categorizing breast mammographic density: intra- and interobserver reproducibility of BI-RADS density categories. Breast 2005; 14: 269-275.
28. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, et al. Variability and accuracy in mammographic interpretation using the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998; 90: 1801-1809.
29. Nicholson BT, LoRusso AP, Smolkin M, et al. Accuracy of assigned BI-RADS breast density category definitions. Acad Radiol 2006; 13: 1143-1149.
30. Ooms EA, Zonderland HM, Eijkemans MJC, et al. Mammography: Interobserver variability in breast density assessment. Breast 2007; 16: 568-576.