Mammographic Density Pattern in Enugu, South-East Nigeria: An audit and review of the literature
Main Article Content
Abstract
Purpose: Mammographic density portends critical radiologic and clinical implications. It is not only a limiting factor to the sensitivity of mammography in the detection of breast cancer, it has also been shown that the derse breast may upregulatethe risk of future breast cancer. It has thus generated a lot of scholarly interest. Accordingly many modifying variables of breast density have been identified and described. There is a paucity of local data on this issue. We present here a descriptive retrospective analysis of mammographic breast density pattern among patients (screening and diagnostic) seen over a four-year period, 2007-2010 at the radiodiagnosis department of the Liniversity of Nigeria Teaching Hospital (UNTH), Enugu in South-East Nigeria
Method: Records of mammographic exams done at the Radiology Unit of the University of Nigeria Teaching Hospital Itiku-Ozalla, Enugu assembled, sorted and collated. Relevant parameters extracted from the records included patients' ages, mammographic breast densities and the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System(ACR BIRADS) assignment. All reports selected were accompanied by films and each mamunogram was re-assessed for mammographic dersity by a radiologist using the same mammography viewing box. The The radiologist was blinded in the accompanying radiologist's report and the mammographic breast pattern contained therein. The previous and review mammographic breast density patterns were compared and only concordant reports were accepted for the study. Bilateral mammograms which had widely varying mammographic densitieswere excluded. All mammographic densities were recorded as dense, fiber-glandular or fatty replaced. For convenience breasts in varying phases of involution were all regarded as fatty replaced.
Result: The predominant breast type is the fibroglandular pattern seen in a total of 161 patients (50.5%) of the total number of patients seen. This breast pattern is seen to peak among the age group 35-49 years where 129 patients or 79% patients have fibroglandular pattern. A total of 153 patients (48%) are seen with fatty replaced breast type. In all 206 patients are below the age of 50 years. Of this, 70 patients representing 34% of the total have already transited to a fatty replaced breast type leaving 66% of patients below the age of 50years with fibroglandular or dense breast patterns.
Conclusion: Majority of breast density patterns encountered in our study is the fibroglandular type. This is followed by the fatty replaced pattern. A significant proportion of women, 50 years and above still retain risk-conferring high mammographic density pattern. High mammographic density apart from its association with increased risk of breast cancer may also mask cancers already present and reduce sensitivity of mammographic detection. Complimentary imaging like ultrasonography should be optimized especially in our environment where cancers occur in comparatively younger females who are expected to have mammographically dense breasts.
Downloads
Article Details
Section

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
How to Cite
References
1. Smart CR, Hendrick RF, Rutledge JH, T Smith RA. Benefit of mammography screening in wann ages 40 to 49 years. Currant evidence from randomized controlled trials. Cancer 1995, 75:1619 1626
2. Tahar 1 Chen HH, Fagerberg G. Duffy SW, Smith TC. Recent results from the Swedish Two-County Trial the effects of age, histologic type, and mode of doboction on the efficacy of breast cancer screening, Nail Cancer IrutManogr 1992 43-47
3. Tabar L. Fagerberg G. Duffy SW, Day NE. Gad A, Grontoft O. Update of the Swedish wo-county program of mammographic
screening for bev cancer. RadiolClin North Am 1992.30 187-201
4. Lov CH Smith RC, Levine JA, Trolanne RN, Tecino L Clinical usefulness of MR imaging of the breast in the evaluation of the problematic mammogram. AJR 1999 1731323-1329
5. Wolfe IN. Breast pattern asan index of risk for developing Invant cancer. AJR 1976, 126 1130-1139
6. Gapotius SM, Lopez P, Colangelo LA Wolfmarm J, Van Horn L, Hendrick RE Association of Breast Cancer Risk Factors with Breast Density in Hispanic Women Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers and Preventiem 2003, 12:1074-1080
7. Boyd NF, Gillian SD, Stome J. Gunasekara A. Dallas, English R. Margaret RE McCredie, Giles QG, Tritchler Di Chiarelli A. Yaffe M). Hopper 1 Heritability of Mammographic Dersity, a Risk Factor for Breast Cancer. The N Engl. ). Med. 2002,347.886-81
8. B. Witt, Hassan HS, Brummer S. The risk of developing Imreast cancer in relation t mammography findings. Euro. J. Radiol. 1984/4(4):65-7
9. Beyna C. Schainer C. Wolfe et al. Mammographic features and breall cancer riak: effects with time, age and menopausal stahun. NatiCancer Int 1995,97:1622-1629
10. Kolh TM. Lichy Newhense JH Comparison of the Performance of Screening Mammography, Physical Examination and Breast US and Evaluation of factors Thalinfinence Them An Analyain of 27825 Patient evaluations. Radiology. 2002-22165-175
11. Blanks RG, Mo SM, Wallis MC Lise of two-view mammography compared. with onw-view in the detection of small Inwastve-cancers, further results from the National Health Service breast screvtingg program,) Med Screen 1997,4:98-101
12. Jackson VP, Hendrick RE, Ferg SA, et al. Imaging of the radiographically donne Inssast. Kadiology 1993,188.290-301
13. Weinrab JC Newsteed G. Controversies in Iheast MRI. MagnReson Q 1994, 10:67. 83
14. Atkinson C. Warren R. llingham SA, Day NE. Mammographic Patterns as a Predictive biomarker of Breast Cancer Risk: Effect of Tamoxifen. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 1999,9883 866
15. Leinster S), Whitehouse CH The mammographic breast pattem and oral contraception. The Br. J. Radiol. 1986:59:237-239
16. Laya Mll, Gallagher JC, Schreiman S, et al. Effect of post menopausal bornmone replacument therapy on mammographic density and parenchymal pattern. Radiology 1995,196:433.7
17. Hoyd NF, Greenberg C, Lockwood C, ot al. FHocts at two years of a low-fat highs carbohydrate diet on radiologic features of the breaat nesults from a randomized trial. J Nati Cancer Ist 1997,85-488-96
18. Kopans DB Breast Imaging. Lippincott Raven publishers, Philadelphia 1996
19. Tabar 1. Daun PU Teaching Atlas of Mammography. Georg Thieme Verlag Stuttgart 1983
20. Lanay M.. Chagnosis and differential diagnosis of breast calcifications. Springer-Verlag, Berlin 1966.
21. Byng JW, Talle ML, Jong RA, Shuumak R Lockwood GA, Tritchler DM, Boyd NF Analysts of mammographic deraity anıl breast cancer risk from digitized mammograms. Radiographics 1908 18:1887-15
22. Barth V. Prochtel . Atlas of breast diwases, BC. Decker Inc. Philadelphia 1991
23. Wolfe JN. Risk of breast Cancer development determined by mamanographic panmchymal patien Cancer 197637.2486-2492
24. Walte IN, Saftlas AF, Salane M Mammographic parenchymal patter and quantitative evaluation of mammographic densitiesc a
caur control study. Am. Rosт 1986-148:1087-1092
25. Threat Nabeck IM, Ellman NS Kummer H, Roselle P. Association betivien mammographic parenchymal classification and incidenes of breast canon. Cancer 1990-45-2550-2556
26. Tahar L. Dean PIB Mammographic parenchymal patterns Risk indicator for Imeast cancer? JAMA 1982,247:185-198
27. Akinola A, Akinola Al Shitti LAL Bahugun BO, Taya AC. Appraisal of manunography in Nigerian wutrwn in a new teaching hospital SRE 2007 2/8):325-129
28. Ziv E, Tice), Smith-Batman 2, Shephetil 1. Cummins S. Kerlikowaske K Mammographic Density and Estrogen Receptor Status of llavast Cancer Canc Epidemiol Biomark. Prov, 2004,13:2090
28. Derick H. Gao F. Jong R, Fishell E, Valli M. Martin 1, L1 T. Stew J, Sun I, Hopper J. Boyd NF. Risk factors for Breast Cance Associated with Mammographic Features in Singaporsan Chinese Women. Cane Epidemiol. Biomark Prev 2004:13:1751-1756
20. Bryne C. Studying unammographic dewity: implications for understanding Breast cancer. Natl. Cancer Inot 1999,89531-533
31. Moskowitz M. Gartsido P, McLaughlin C Wirman JA. Proliferative disorders of the hevast as risk factors for fonoast cancer in a well-selected scrowned population. Radiology 1960, 134-259-291
32. Whitehouse GH, Leimates St. The Variation of breast parenchymal patter withage. Ur Radio. 1985.58315-318
33. Sumper PC, D'Souza D, DiNite PA, Arredonda MA. Analysis of parenchymal denalty on mammogrami of 1383 wennen 25-79 years old. Am Roentgenol 1996, 167/1261-1265
34. Salminen T. Hakama M. Heikkila M. Saaremaa 1. Favourable change inv anammographic parenchymal patterns and lavail vancer risk factors. Int) cancer 199678-410-414
35. Ma L. Fabell Wright Hannaw, Allan S, Heyd NF. Case-control study of factors asociated with faime to detect breast cancer by mammography, Nall Cancer Insat 1992,84-781-795
36. Bod HE, Wallave TW, Yankaskas DC Analysis of cancers missed of servening mammography. Radiology 1992,154613-617
37. Sala F, Warten R. McCann J, Dully S Day N. Luben R. Mammographic parenchymal patterns and mode of detection: implications for breast screening programme Med Screm 1996,5:207-212
38. Van Gils CH, Otten JDM, Verbeek ALM, Hendriks JHCL, Holland R. Effect of mammographic breast density on breast cancer screening performance: a study on Nijmengen, the Netherlands J EpidemiolCommun 1998,52-267-271
39. Anyanwu SNC. Temporal trends in breast cancer presentation in the third world. J ExpClin Canc Res. 2008,27:17
40. Gravelle IH, Bulstrode JC, Bulbrook RD, Hayward JL, Wang DY. The relation between radiological patterns of the breast and body weight and height. Br Radiol. 1982,55-23-25
41. Grove JS, Goodman MJ, Gilbert Fl, Mi MP. Factors associated with mammographic pattern. Br J Radiol 1985-58-21-25
42. Gravelle IH, Buistrode JC, Bulbrook RD, Hayward L. The relation between radiographic features and determinants of risk of breast cancer. Br J Radiol 1980,53:107-113-
43. Berkowitz JE, Gatewood OMB, Goldblum LE, Gayler BW. Hormonal replacement therapy: mammographic manifestations. Radinlogy 1990:174-199-201
44. Stomper PC, van Voorhes BJ, Ravnikar VA, Meyer JE. Mammographic changes associated with postmenopausal hormone replacement therapy: a longitudinal study. Radiology 1990:174:487-490
45. Kaufman Z, Garstin WIH, Hayes R, Michel MJ, Baum M. The mammographic parenchymal patterns of women on hormonal replacement therapy. ClinRadiol 1991-43-189-392
46. McNicholas MMJ, Heneghan JP, Milner MH. Tunney T. Hourihane JB, MacErlaine DP. Pain and increased mammographic density in women receiving hormone replacement therapy: a prospective study. Am J Roentgenol 1994:163-311-315
47. Persson 1 Thurfjell E, Holmberg L. Effect of estrogen and estrogen-progestin replacement regimens on mammographic breast parenchymal density, J Clin Oncol 1997;15-3201-3202
48. Salminen TM, Saarenmaa IE, HeikkilaMM, Hakama M. Unfavourable change in mammographic patterns and the breast cancer risk factors. Breast cancer Res Treat 1999, 57:165-173
49. Shainer C. Lubin), Troisi R, Sturgeon S Brinton L. Hoover R. Menopausal estrogen and estrogen progesterin replacement therapy and breast cancer risk, JAMA 2000-283-485-491