Relation between Mammographic Parenchymal Patterns and Breast Cancer Risk: Considering BMI, Compressed Breast Thickness and Age of Women in Tabriz, Iran

  • Mehnati, Parinaz (Department of Medical Physics, Faculty of Medicine, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Alizadeh, Hamed (Department of Medical Physics, Faculty of Medicine, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Hoda, Haleh (Golbad Private Radiology Clinic)
  • Published : 2016.06.01


Background: Mammographic density determined according paranchymal patterns is a risk factor for breast cancer and its relationships with body and other breast characteristics of women is important. The purpose of the present study was to correlate breast parenchymal patterns and mammography abnormality findings with women's BMI, compressed breast thickness (CBT) and age in Tabriz city, Iran. Materials and Methods: From 1,100 mammograms interpreted by radiologists, breast parenchymal was classified into four categories from Types 1 (mostly fatty) through 4 (mostly fibroglandular tissue). Age, BMI, and CBT were recorded and their relation with risk for the development of breast abnormalities in mammograms was analyzed. Results: In women with a mean age of $45.8{\pm}8.63years$ 17.7% were in the high density group (Type 3 and 4). A comparison of four types of breast paranchymal with BMI, CBT and age showed inverse relations to breast density. Abnormal mammographic findings were 25.8% of all reported mammograms with a circular mass (12.7%) as the most common abnormality. About 21% abnormal cases were in less than 40 years. Increasing of BMI had significant relation with breast abnormality but in CBT was not observed. Conclusions: Measurement of women's body characteristics is useful for assistance in mammography diagnosis as well as selection of imaging instrument by high sensitivity for following patient in future. The effects of age, CBT and BMI groups on the breast paranchymal were significant.


  1. American college of Radiology (2003). Breast Imaging Reporting and Data system (BI-RADS), 4th ed. Reston, VA: American college of Radiology.
  2. Boonlikit S (2013). Comparison of mammography in combination with breast ultrasonography versus mammography alone for breast cancer screening in asymptomatic women. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 14, 7731-36.
  3. Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ, et al (2007). Mammographic Density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med, 356, 227-36.
  4. Ciatto S, Zappa M (1993). A prospective study of the value of the mammographic patterns as indicators of breast cancer risk in a screening experience. Eur J Radiol, 17, 122-25.
  5. Youlden DR, Cramb SM, Yip CH et al (2014). Incidence and mortality of female breast cancer in the Asia-Pacific region. Cancer Biol Med, 11, 101-15.
  6. Devolli-Disha E, Manxhuka-kerliu S, Ymeri H, et al (2009). Comparative accuracy of mammography and ultrasound in women with breast symptoms according to age and breast density. Bosnian J B Med.Scie, 9, 131-6.
  7. Farrokh D, Zandi B, Hashemi J (2008). Study of mammographic findings of breast cancer in women under 35 years old. Iranian J Radiol, 5, 55.
  8. Harirchi I, Karbakhsh M, Kashefi A (2004). Breast cancer in Iran: results of a multi-center study. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 5, 24-7.
  9. Hosseinzadeh M, Eivazi Ziaei J, Mahdavi N et al (2014). Risk factors for breast cancer in Iranian women: a hospital-based case- control study in Tabriz, Iran. J Breast Cancer, 17, 236-43
  10. Iran Ministry of Health and Medical Education (2004). Disease management center, cancer office. Country report of cancer cases. Tehran: kelk Zarrin press, p.16 (in Persian).
  11. Kato I, Beinart C, Bleich A, et al (1995). A nested case-control study of mammographic patterns, breast volume, and breast cancer. Cancer Couse Control, 6, 431-38.
  12. Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL, et al (2000). Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst, 92, 1081-87.
  13. Mehnati P, Tirtash Jafari M (2015). Comparative efficacy of four imaging instruments for breast cancer screening. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 16, 6177-86.
  14. Mousavi SM, Montazeri A, Mohaghaghi A, et al (2007). Breast cancer in Iran: An Epidemiological Review, 13, 383-91.
  15. Munsell MF, Sprague BL, Berry DA, et al (2014). Body mass index and breast cancer risk according to postmenopausal estrogen-progestin use and hormone receptor status. Epidemiol Rev, 36, 114-36.
  16. Scheibel M, Bucciatelli E (2003). Breast cancer in young women: Clinico-pathological features and biological specificity. Breast, 12, 247-50.
  17. Shakouri Prtovi P, Nami F (2004). Evolution of the mammographic findings in patients over 40 years of age with mammary disorders. Archive of SID, 9, 72-82.
  18. Shannon C, Smith IE (2003). Breast cancer in adolescent and young women. Eur J Cancer, 39, 2632-42.
  19. Sickles EA (2007). Wolfe mammographic parenchymal patterns and breast cancer risk. AJR, 188, 301-3.
  20. Taheri NS, Bakhshandeh nosrat S, Tabiei MN (2012). Epidemiological pattern of breast cancer in Iranian women: is there an ethnic disparity? Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 13, 4517-20.
  21. Zulfiqar MA, Rohazly I, Rahmah MA (2011). Do the majority of Malaysian women have dense breasts on mammogram? Biomed Imaging Interv J, 7, 14.

Cited by

  1. Prediction of glandularity and breast radiation dose from mammography results in Japanese women pp.1741-0444, 2018,