DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Bioimpedence to Assess Breast Density as a Risk Factor for Breast Cancer in Adult Women and Adolescent Girls

  • Maskarinec, Gertraud (Epidemiology Program, University of Hawaii Cancer Center) ;
  • Morimoto, Yukiko (Epidemiology Program, University of Hawaii Cancer Center) ;
  • Laguana, Michelle B (College of Natural & Applied Sciences, University of Guam) ;
  • Novotny, Rachel (Human Nutrition, Food and Animal Science Department, University of Hawaii) ;
  • Guerrero, Rachael T Leon (College of Natural & Applied Sciences, University of Guam)
  • Published : 2016.02.05

Abstract

Although high mammographic density is one of the strongest predictors of breast cancer risk, X-ray based mammography cannot be performed before the recommended screening age, especially not in adolescents and young women. Therefore, new techniques for breast density measurement are of interest. In this pilot study in Guam and Hawaii, we evaluated a radiation-free, bioimpedance device called Electrical Breast Densitometer$^{TM}$ (EBD; senoSENSE Medical Systems, Inc., Ontario, Canada) for measuring breast density in 95 women aged 31-82 years and 41 girls aged 8-18 years. Percent density (PD) was estimated in the women's most recent mammogram using a computer-assisted method. Correlation coefficients and linear regression were applied for statistical analysis. In adult women, mean EBD and PD values of the left and right breasts were $230{\pm}52$ and $226{\pm}50{\Omega}$ and $23.7{\pm}15.1$ and $24.2{\pm}15.2%$, respectively. The EBD measurements were inversely correlated with PD ($r_{Spearman}=-0.52$, p<0.0001); the correlation was stronger in Caucasians ($r_{Spearman}=-0.70$, p<0.0001) than Asians ($r_{Spearman}=-0.54$, p<0.01) and Native Hawaiian/Chamorro/Pacific Islanders ($r_{Spearman}=-0.34$, p=0.06). Using 4 categories of PD (<10, 10-25, 26-50, 51-75%), the respective mean EBD values were $256{\pm}32$, $249{\pm}41$, $202{\pm}46$, and $178{\pm}43{\Omega}$ (p<0.0001). In girls, the mean EBD values in the left and right breast were $148{\pm}40$ and $155{\pm}54{\Omega}$; EBD values decreased from Tanner stages 1 to 4 ($204{\pm}14$, $154{\pm}79$, $136{\pm}43$, and $119{\pm}16{\Omega}$ for stages 1-4, respectively) but were higher at Tanner stage 5 ($165{\pm}30{\Omega}$). With further development, this bioimpedance method may allow for investigations of breast development among adolescent, as well as assessment of breast cancer risk early in life and in populations without access to mammography.

Keywords

Mammography;breast density;bioimpedance;breast cancer;risk assessment;adolescence

Acknowledgement

Supported by : National Cancer Institute

References

  1. Boyd N, Martin L, Chavez S, et al (2009). Breast-tissue composition and other risk factors for breast cancer in young women: a cross-sectional study. Lancet Oncol, 10, 569-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70078-6
  2. Boyd NF, Lockwood GA, Byng JW, et al (1998). The relationship of anthropometric measures to radiological features of the breast in premenopausal women. Br J Cancer, 78, 1233-8. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.1998.660
  3. Boyd NF, Rommens JM, Vogt K, et al (2005). Mammographic breast density as an intermediate phenotype for breast cancer. Lancet Oncol, 6, 798-808. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(05)70390-9
  4. Bukhanov K, Ironstone J, Basso C, Bilodeau T (2012). Determination of breast density by bioimpedance (abstract, Breast Cancer Symposium). http://meetinglibrary.asco.org/content/102867-125. Accessed on 1-31-2013.
  5. Byng JW, Yaffe MJ, Jong RA, et al (1998). Analysis of mammographic density and breast cancer risk from digitized mammograms. Radiographics, 18, 1587-98. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiographics.18.6.9821201
  6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Center for Health Statistics, 2009. CDC Growth Charts. www.cdc.gov/growthcharts. Accessed on 6-22-2010.
  7. Gail MH, Kessler L, Midthune D, et al (1999). Two approaches for estimating disease prevalence from population-based registries of incidence and total mortality. Biometrics, 55, 1137-44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341X.1999.01137.x
  8. Glide C, Duric N, Littrup P (2007). Novel approach to evaluating breast density utilizing ultrasound tomography. Med Phys, 34, 744-53. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2428408
  9. Glide-Hurst CK, Duric N, Littrup P (2008). Volumetric breast density evaluation from ultrasound tomography images. Med Phys, 35, 3988-97. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2964092
  10. Hernandez BY (2002). The hawaii tumor registry: more than forty years of cancer surveillance for the islands. Hawaii Med J, 61, 53.
  11. Jaffrin MY (2009). Body composition determination by bioimpedance: an update. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care, 12, 482-6. https://doi.org/10.1097/MCO.0b013e32832da22c
  12. Leon Guerrero RT, Badowski G, Yamanaka A, et al (2014). University of hawai'i cancer center connection: the vital role of cancer registries in the recruitment of an understudied minority population into a breast cancer study: breast cancer risk model for the pacific. Hawaii J Med Public Health, 73, 335-40.
  13. Martin LJ, Minkin S, Boyd NF (2009). Hormone therapy, mammographic density, and breast cancer risk. Maturitas, 64, 20-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2009.07.009
  14. Maskarinec G, Morimoto Y, Daida Y, et al (2011a). Comparison of breast density measured by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry with mammographic density among adult women in Hawaii. Cancer Epidemiol, 35, 188-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canep.2010.06.009
  15. Maskarinec G, Morimoto Y, Daida Y, et al (2011b). A comparison of breast density measures between mothers and adolescent daughters. BMC Cancer, 11, 330. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-11-330
  16. Michels KB, Willett WC (2004). Breast cancer--early life matters. N Engl J Med, 351, 1679-81. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMe048229
  17. Novotny R, Daida Y, Morimoto Y, et al (2011). Puberty, body fat, and breast density in girls of several ethnic groups. Am J Hum Biol, 23, 359-65. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajhb.21145
  18. Tanner JM (1962). Growth at adolescence, with a general consideration of the effects of hereditary and environmental factors upon growth and maturation from birth to maturity. 2nd edn, Blackwell Scientific Publisher, Oxford.
  19. Tice JA, Cummings SR, Smith-Bindman R, et al (2008). Using clinical factors and mammographic breast density to estimate breast cancer risk: development and validation of a new predictive model. Ann Intern Med, 148, 337-47. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-148-5-200803040-00004
  20. Tice JA, Cummings SR, Ziv E, et al (2005). Mammographic breast density and the gail model for breast cancer risk prediction in a screening population. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 94, 115-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-005-5152-4
  21. U.S.Preventive Services Task Force (2009). Screening for breast cancer: u.s. preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med, 151, 716-236. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-10-200911170-00008
  22. Yaffe MJ (2008). Mammographic density. Measurement of mammographic density. Breast Cancer Res, 10, 209. https://doi.org/10.1186/bcr2102

Cited by

  1. Determinants of volumetric breast density in Chilean premenopausal women vol.162, pp.2, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-017-4126-7
  2. ]anthracene-induced mammary carcinogenesis in female rat offspring vol.139, pp.8, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.30223
  3. Role of breast density measurement in screening for breast cancer vol.21, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1080/13697137.2018.1424816