Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology (대한영상의학회지)

The Korean Society of Radiology (대한영상의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Association of Volumetric Breast Density with Clinical and Histopathological Factors in 205 Breast Cancer Patients

205명의 유방암 환자에서 용적 유방 밀도와 임상적 및 조직병리학적 인자와의 관련성 연구

  • Jung, Nari (Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, Kyungpook National University, Kyungpook National University Chilgok Hospital) ;
  • Kim, Won Hwa (Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, Kyungpook National University, Kyungpook National University Chilgok Hospital)
  • 정나리 (칠곡경북대학교병원 영상의학과) ;
  • 김원화 (칠곡경북대학교병원 영상의학과)
  • Received : 2017.07.28
  • Accepted : 2018.03.07
  • Published : 2018.07.01
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the association of volumetric breast density with clinicopathological factors in breast cancer patients. Materials and Methods: A total of 205 Korean patients with breast cancer who underwent mammography for initial staging between January 2015 and June 2016 were enrolled. Volumetric breast density was measured using a fully automated commercial method ($Volpara^{(R)}$). in the contralateral breast. The association of volumetric breast density with clinical and histopathological factors was evaluated using t-test and analysis of variance as appropriate. Results: Mean volumetric breast density in all patients was 13.5% (range, 4.1-34.9%). The mean volumetric breast density in patients with symptom-detected cancers was significantly higher than that in those with screening-detected cancers (14.9% vs. 11.8%, p = 0.002). Mean volumetric breast density tended to decrease with age (20-39 years: 19.0%, 40-59 years: 14.3%, 60-80 years: 7.7%). The mean volumetric breast density in postmenopausal women was significantly lower than that in premenopausal women (9.8% vs. 17.6%, p < 0.001). Other histopathological factors including histologic grade or hormone receptor status were not associated with volumetric breast density. Conclusion: Our results suggest that volumetric breast density is associated with the method of detection, age, and menopausal status.

목적: 유방암 환자에서 용적 유방 밀도와 임상 및 병리학적 인자와의 연관성을 알아보고자 한다. 대상과 방법: 2015년 1월부터 2016년 6월까지 유방암 초기 진단을 위해 유방 촬영술을 시행한 총 205명의 한국인 유방암 환자를 대상으로 하였다. 용적 유방 밀도는 완전 자동화된 상업적 방법($Volpara^{(R)}$)을 사용하여 반대측 유방에서 측정하였다. 용적 유방 밀도와 임상 및 병리학적 인자와의 연관성을 t-검정 및 분산분석(analysis of variance)을 적절하게 사용하여 평가 하였다. 결과: 모든 환자에서 평균 용적 유방 밀도는 13.5% (범위, 4.1-34.9%)였다. 평균 용적 유방 밀도는 선별 검사로 확인된 암 환자보다 증상이 있어 시행한 암 환자에서 유의하게 높았다(14.9% vs. 11.8%, p = 0.002). 평균 용적 유방 밀도는 나이에 따라 감소하는 경향을 보였고 20-39세, 40-59세, 60-80세 환자의 밀도는 각각 19.0%, 14.3% 및 7.7%였다. 평균 용적 유방 밀도는 폐경 전 여성보다 폐경 후 여성에서 유의하게 낮았다(9.8% vs. 17.6%, p < 0.001). 조직학적 등급과 호르몬 수용체 상태를 포함한 기타 임상 및 병리학적 요인들은 용적 유방 밀도와 관련이 없었다. 결론: 본 연구는 용적 유방 밀도가 암이 진단된 방법, 연령 및 폐경 상태와 관련되어 있음을 시사한다.

Keywords

References

  1. 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;356:227-236 https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa062790
  2. 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 https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-06-0034
  3. Harvey JA, Bovbjerg VE. Quantitative assessment of mammographic breast density: relationship with breast cancer risk. Radiology 2004;230:29-41 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2301020870
  4. Harvey JA, Holm MK, Ranganath R, Guse PA, Trott EA, Helzner E. The effects of bazedoxifene on mammographic breast density in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Menopause 2009;16:1193-1196 https://doi.org/10.1097/gme.0b013e3181a7fb1e
  5. Cuzick J, Warwick J, Pinney E, Duffy SW, Cawthorn S, Howell A, et al. Tamoxifen-induced reduction in mammographic density and breast cancer risk reduction: a nested casecontrol study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011;103:744-752 https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djr079
  6. Harvey JA, Bovbjerg VE, Smolkin ME, Williams MB, Petroni GR. Evaluating hormone therapy-associated increases in breast density comparison between reported and simultaneous assignment of BI-RADS categories, visual assessment, and quantitative analysis. Acad Radiol 2005;12:853-862 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2005.04.003
  7. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology 2002;225:165-175 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2251011667
  8. Pinsky RW, Helvie MA. Mammographic breast density: effect on imaging and breast cancer risk. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2010;8:1157-1164; quiz 1165 https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2010.0085
  9. American College of Radiology. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). 4th ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2003
  10. Byng JW, Yaffe MJ, Jong RA, Shumak RS, Lockwood GA, Tritchler DL, et al. Analysis of mammographic density and breast cancer risk from digitized mammograms. Radiographics 1998;18:1587-1598 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiographics.18.6.9821201
  11. Zhou C, Chan HP, Petrick N, Helvie MA, Goodsitt MM, Sahiner B, et al. Computerized image analysis: estimation of breast density on mammograms. Med Phys 2001;28:1056-1069 https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1376640
  12. Chang YH, Wang XH, Hardesty LA, Chang TS, Poller WR, Good WF, et al. Computerized assessment of tissue composition on digitized mammograms. Acad Radiol 2002;9:899-905 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1076-6332(03)80459-2
  13. Ng KH, Lau S. Vision 20/20: mammographic breast density and its clinical applications. Med Phys 2015;42:7059-7077 https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4935141
  14. Destounis S, Johnston L, Highnam R, Arieno A, Morgan R, Chan A. Using volumetric breast density to quantify the potential masking risk of mammographic density. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2017;208:222-227 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.16.16489
  15. Leong SP, Shen ZZ, Liu TJ, Agarwal G, Tajima T, Paik NS, et al. Is breast cancer the same disease in Asian and Western countries? World J Surg 2010;34:2308-2324 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-010-0683-1
  16. Boyd N, Martin L, Stone J, Little L, Minkin S, Yaffe M. A longitudinal study of the effects of menopause on mammographic features. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2002;11:1048-1053
  17. Choppin SB, Wheat JS, Gee M, Goyal A. The accuracy of breast volume measurement methods: a systematic review. Breast 2016;28:121-129 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2016.05.010
  18. Kovacs L, Eder M, Hollweck R, Zimmermann A, Settles M, Schneider A, et al. Comparison between breast volume measurement using 3D surface imaging and classical techniques. Breast 2007;16:137-145 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2006.08.001
  19. Veitch D, Burford K, Dench P, Dean N, Griffin P. Measurement of breast volume using body scan technology (computer-aided anthropometry). Work 2012;41 Suppl 1:4038-4045
  20. Teo I, Whelehan P, Macaskill JE, Vinnicombe S, Munnoch DA, Evans A. $Volpara^{TM}$ as a measurement tool for breast volume. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2016;69:581-582 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2015.11.024