Cargando…

Geographic variation in volumetric breast density between screening regions in the Netherlands

OBJECTIVES: Differences in breast density between populations may explain part of the variation in regional breast cancer screening performance. This study aimed to determine whether regional differences in breast density distribution are present in the Dutch screening population. METHODS: As part o...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: van der Waal, Daniëlle, Emaus, Marleen J., Bakker, Marije F., den Heeten, Gerard J., Karssemeijer, Nico, Pijnappel, Ruud M., Veldhuis, Wouter B., Verbeek, André L. M., van Gils, Carla H, Broeders, Mireille J. M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4595533/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26134996
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-3742-z
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVES: Differences in breast density between populations may explain part of the variation in regional breast cancer screening performance. This study aimed to determine whether regional differences in breast density distribution are present in the Dutch screening population. METHODS: As part of the DENSE trial, mammographic density was measured using a fully-automated volumetric method. The regions in our study were based on the geographic coverage of 14 reading units representing a large part of the Netherlands. General linear models were used. RESULTS: Four hundred eighty-five thousand and twenty-one screening participants with a median age of 60 years were included (2013-2014). The proportion of women with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts ranged from 32.5 % to 45.7 % between regions. Mean percent dense volume varied between 6.51 % (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 6.46-6.55) and 7.68 % (95 % CI: 7.66-7.71). Age differences could not explain the variation. Socio-economic status (SES) was positively associated with volumetric density in all analyses (low SES: 6.95 % vs. high SES: 7.63 %; p(trend) < 0.0001), whereas a potential association between urbanisation and breast density only became apparent after SES adjustment. CONCLUSION: There appears to be geographic variation in mammographic density in the Netherlands, emphasizing the importance of including breast density as parameter in the evaluation of screening performance. KEY POINTS: • Mammographic density may affect regional breast cancer screening performance. • Volumetric breast density varies across screening areas. • SES is positively associated with breast density. • Implications of volumetric breast density differences need to be studied further.