Do Birth Weight and Weight Gain During Infancy and Early Childhood Explain Variation in Mammographic Density in Women in Midlife? Results From Cohort and Sibling Analyses

Mammographic density mediates the protective effect of early-life body size on breast cancer risk

The unexplained protective effect of childhood adiposity on breast cancer risk may be mediated via mammographic density (MD). Here, we investigate a complex relationship between adiposity in childhood and adulthood, puberty onset, MD phenotypes (dense area (DA), non-dense area (NDA), percent density (PD)), and their effects on breast cancer. We use Mendelian randomization (MR) and multivariable MR to estimate the total and direct effects of adiposity and age at menarche on MD phenotypes. Childhood adiposity has a decreasing effect on DA, while adulthood adiposity increases NDA. Later menarche increases DA/PD, but when accounting for childhood adiposity, this effect is attenuated. Next, we examine the effect of MD on breast cancer risk. DA/PD have a risk-increasing effect on breast cancer across all subtypes. The MD SNPs estimates are heterogeneous, and additional analyses suggest that different mechanisms may be linking MD and breast cancer. Finally, we evaluate the role of MD in the protective effect of childhood adiposity on breast cancer. Mediation MR analysis shows that 56% (95% CIs [32%-79%]) of this effect is mediated via DA. Our finding suggests that higher childhood adiposity decreases mammographic DA, subsequently reducing breast cancer risk. Understanding this mechanism is important for identifying potential intervention targets.

The mediating role of mammographic density in the protective effect of early-life adiposity on breast cancer risk: a multivariable Mendelian randomization study

Observational studies suggest that mammographic density (MD) may have a role in the unexplained protective effect of childhood adiposity on breast cancer risk. Here, we investigated a complex and interlinked relationship between puberty onset, adiposity, MD, and their effects on breast cancer using Mendelian randomization (MR). We estimated the effects of childhood and adulthood adiposity, and age at menarche on MD phenotypes (dense area (DA), non-dense area (NDA), percent density (PD)) using MR and multivariable MR (MVMR), allowing us to disentangle their total and direct effects. Next, we examined the effect of MD on breast cancer risk, including risk of molecular subtypes, and accounting for genetic pleiotropy. Finally, we used MVMR to evaluate whether the protective effect of childhood adiposity on breast cancer was mediated by MD. Childhood adiposity had a strong inverse effect on mammographic DA, while adulthood adiposity increased NDA. Later menarche had an effect of increasing DA and PD, but when accounting for childhood adiposity, this effect attenuated to the null. DA and PD had a risk-increasing effect on breast cancer across all subtypes. The MD single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) estimates were extremely heterogeneous, and examination of the SNPs suggested different mechanisms may be linking MD and breast cancer. Finally, MR mediation analysis estimated that 56% (95% CIs [32% - 79%]) of the childhood adiposity effect on breast cancer risk was mediated via DA. In this work, we sought to disentangle the relationship between factors affecting MD and breast cancer. We showed that higher childhood adiposity decreases mammographic DA, which subsequently leads to reduced breast cancer risk. Understanding this mechanism is of great importance for identifying potential targets of intervention, since advocating weight gain in childhood would not be recommended.

Breast Density: Current Knowledge, Assessment Methods, and Clinical Implications

Breast density is an accepted independent risk factor for the future development of breast cancer, and greater breast density has the potential to mask malignancies on mammography, thus lowering the sensitivity of screening mammography. The risk associated with dense breast tissue has been shown to be modifiable with changes in breast density. Numerous studies have sought to identify factors that influence breast density, including age, genetic, racial/ethnic, prepubertal, adolescent, lifestyle, environmental, hormonal, and reproductive history factors. Qualitative, semiquantitative, and quantitative methods of breast density assessment have been developed, but to date there is no consensus assessment method or reference standard for breast density. Breast density has been incorporated into breast cancer risk models, and there is growing consciousness of the clinical implications of dense breast tissue in both the medical community and public arena. Efforts to improve breast cancer screening sensitivity for women with dense breasts have led to increased attention to supplemental screening methods in recent years, prompting the American College of Radiology to publish Appropriateness Criteria for supplemental screening based on breast density.

Crown-Like Structures in Breast Adipose Tissue: Early Evidence and Current Issues in Breast Cancer

Obesity is an established risk factor for postmenopausal breast cancer and has been linked to worse breast cancer prognosis, most clearly for hormone receptor-positive breast cancers. The underlying mechanisms of the obesity-breast cancer association are not fully understood, but growing evidence points to the breast adipose tissue microenvironment playing an important role. Obesity-induced adipose tissue dysfunction can result in a chronic state of low-grade inflammation. Crown-like structures of the breast (CLS-B) were recently identified as a histologic marker of local inflammation. In this review, we evaluate the early evidence of CLS-B in breast cancer. Data from preclinical and clinical studies show that these inflammatory lesions within the breast are associated with local NF-κB activation, increased aromatase activity, and elevation of pro-inflammatory mediators (TNFα, IL-1β, IL-6, and COX-2-derived PGE2)-factors involved in multiple pathways of breast cancer development and progression. There is also substantial evidence from epidemiologic studies that CLS-B are associated with greater adiposity among breast cancer patients. However, there is insufficient evidence that CLS-B impact breast cancer risk or prognosis. Comparisons across studies of prognosis were complicated by differences in CLS-B evaluation and deficiencies in study design, which future studies should take into consideration. Breast adipose tissue inflammation provides a plausible explanation for the obesity-breast cancer association, but further study is needed to establish its role and whether markers such as CLS-B are clinically useful.

Environmental Influences on Mammographic Breast Density in California: A Strategy to Reduce Breast Cancer Risk

State legislation in many U.S. states, including California, mandates informing women if they have dense breasts on screening mammography, meaning over half of their breast tissue is comprised of non-adipose tissue. Breast density is important to interpret screening sensitivity and is an established breast cancer risk factor. Environmental chemical exposures may play an important role in this, especially during key windows of susceptibility for breast development: in utero, during puberty, pregnancy, lactation, and the peri-menopause. There is a paucity of research, however, examining whether environmental chemical exposures are associated with mammographic breast density, and even less is known about environmental exposures during windows of susceptibility. Now, with clinical breast density scoring being reported routinely for mammograms, it is possible to find out, especially in California, where there are large study populations that can link environmental exposures during windows of susceptibility to breast density. Density scores are now available throughout the state through electronic medical records. We can link these with environmental chemical exposures via state-wide monitoring. Studying the effects of environmental exposure on breast density may provide valuable monitoring and etiologic data to inform strategies to reduce breast cancer risk.

Mammographic Density and Screening Sensitivity, Breast Cancer Incidence and Associated Risk Factors in Danish Breast Cancer Screening

Background: Attention in the 2000s on the importance of mammographic density led us to study screening sensitivity, breast cancer incidence, and associations with risk factors by mammographic density in Danish breast cancer screening programs. Here, we summarise our approaches and findings. Methods: Dichotomized density codes: fatty, equal to BI-RADS density code 1 and part of 2, and other mixed/dense data from the 1990s—were available from two counties, and BI-RADS density codes from one region were available from 2012/13. Density data were linked with data on vital status, incident breast cancer, and potential risk factors. We calculated screening sensitivity by combining data on screen-detected and interval cancers. We used cohorts to study high density as a predictor of breast cancer risk; cross-sectional data to study the association between life style factors and density, adjusting for age and body mass index (BMI); and time trends to study the prevalence of high density across birth cohorts. Results: Sensitivity decreased with increasing density from 78% in women with BI-RADS 1 to 47% in those with BI-RADS 4. For women with mixed/dense compared with those with fatty breasts, the rate ratio of incident breast cancer was 2.45 (95% CI 2.14–2.81). The percentage of women with mixed/dense breasts decreased with age, but at a higher rate the later the women were born. Among users of postmenopausal hormone therapy, the percentage of women with mixed/dense breasts was higher than in non-users, but the patterns across birth cohorts were similar. The occurrence of mixed/dense breast at screening age decreased by a z-score unit of BMI at age 13—odds ratio (OR) 0.56 (95% CI 0.53–0.58)—and so did breast cancer risk and hazard ratio (HR) 0.92 (95% CI 0.84–1.00), but it changed to HR 1.01 (95% CI 0.93–1.11) when controlled for density. Age and BMI adjusted associations between life style factors and density were largely close to unity; physical activity OR 1.06 (95% CI 0.93–1.21); alcohol consumption OR 1.01 (95% CI 0.81–1.27); air pollution OR 0.96 (95% 0.93–1.01) per 20 μg/m³; and traffic noise OR 0.94 (95% CI 0.86–1.03) per 10 dB. Weak negative associations were seen for diabetes OR 0.61 (95% CI 0.40–0.92) and cigarette smoking OR 0.86 (95% CI 0.75–0.99), and a positive association was found with hormone therapy OR 1.24 (95% 1.14–1.35). Conclusion: Our data indicate that breast tissue in middle-aged women is highly dependent on childhood body constitution while adult life-style plays a modest role, underlying the need for a long-term perspective in primary prevention of breast cancer.

Placental morphometry in relation to daughters' percent mammographic breast density at midlife

Intrauterine and early-life exposures, including intrauterine smoke exposures and infant growth are associated with mammographic breast density (MBD), a strong breast cancer risk factor. We investigated whether placental morphometry, which is affected by intrauterine smoke exposure and also influences infant growth, predicts %MBD at ages 37-47. In 247 daughters in the Child Health and Development Studies, we found that larger placental surface area and placental thickness were associated with lower %MBD (-0.32 per cm², 95% CI -0.6, -0.05; -37.8 per 0.5 cm, 95% CI= -73.3, -2.3 respectively) independent of mothers' smoking, age, weight, parity and daughters' birthweight and age at mammogram. We also observed a positive interaction between placental surface area and thickness (p < 0.05) such that the highest breast dense area was observed for offspring with the thickest and largest placentas. Factors that impact placental morphometry, in addition to in utero smoke exposure, may influence adult breast architecture and breast cancer risk.