Mammographic density, MRI background parenchymal enhancement and breast cancer risk

Abstract

Mammographic density (MD), representing connective and epithelial tissue (fibroglandular tissue, FGT) is a major risk factor for breast cancer. In an analysis of an autopsy series (Bartow SA, Pathak DR, Mettler FA. Radiographic microcalcification and parenchymal patterns as indicators of histologic “high-risk” benign breast disease. Cancer 1990; 66: 1721–1725, Bartow SA, Pathak DR, Mettler FA et al. Breast mammographic pattern: a concatenation of confounding and breast cancer risk factors. Am J Epidemiol 1995; 142: 813–819), MD was found to be strongly correlated with the collagen and epithelial content of the breast (Li T, Sun L, Miller N et al. The association of measured breast tissue characteristics with MD and other risk factors for breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2005; 14: 343–349), and another report showed that breast epithelium was highly concentrated in the areas of collagen concentration (Hawes D, Downey S, Pearce CL et al. Dense breast stromal tissue shows greatly increased concentration of breast epithelium but no increase in its proliferative activity. Breast Cancer Res 2006; 8: R24). Collagen comprises the overwhelming majority of the FGT, occupying an area on the slides obtained from the autopsy series some 15 times the area of glandular tissue. The relationship of MD with breast cancer risk appears likely to be due to a major extent to increasing epithelial cell numbers with increasing MD. FGT is also seen in breast magnetic resonance imaging (breast MRI) and, as expected, it has been shown that this measure of FGT (MRI-FGT) is highly correlated with MD. A contrast-enhanced breast MRI shows that normal FGT ‘enhances’ (background parenchymal enhancement, BPE) after contrast agent is administered(Morris EA. Diagnostic breast MR imaging: current status and future directions. Radiol Clin North Am 2007; 45: 863–880, vii., Kuhl C. The current status of breast MR imaging. Part I. Choice of technique, image interpretation, diagnostic accuracy, and transfer to clinical practice. Radiology 2007; 244: 356–378), and a recent study suggests that BPE is also a major breast cancer risk factor, possibly as important as, and independent of MD (King V, Brooks JD, Bernstein JL et al. BPE at breast MR imaging and breast cancer risk. Radiology 2011; 260: 50–60). BPE is much more sensitive to the effects of menopause and tamoxifen than is FGT (King V, Gu Y, Kaplan JB et al. Impact of menopausal status on BPE and fibroglandular tissue on breast MRI. Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 2641–2647, King V, Kaplan J, Pike MC et al. Impact of tamoxifen on amount of fibroglandular tissue, BPE, and cysts on breast MRI. Breast J 2012; 18: 527–534). Changes in MD and BPE may be most useful in predicting response to chemopreventive agents aimed at blocking breast cell proliferation. More study of the biological basis of the effects of MD and BPE is needed if we are to fully exploit these factors in developing chemopreventive approaches to breast cancer.