This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (39)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Thomas Carlile, MD; Kenneth J. Kopecky, PhD; Donovan J. Thompson, PhD; John R. Whitehead, PhD; Fred I. Gilbert, Jr, MD; Arthur J. Present, MD; Barbara Anne Threatt, MD; Peter Krook, MD; Evelyn Hadaway, RN, MSW

JAMA. 1985;254(8):1050-1053.

Abstract
Mammographic parenchymal patterns have been proposed as a method of determining women at high risk of developing breast cancer. Wolfe's original report of relative risks as high as 37:1 for "dysplastic" breasts (DY) as compared with adipose breasts (N1), with intermediate values of P1 and P2, were not uniformly confirmed by others. (Relative risks are used here as the equivalent of odds ratios.) A case-control study of 706 breast cancers, each with two matching controls, drawn from 40,000 participants in four Breast Cancer Detection Demonstration Project clinics, was conducted to assess the role of the Wolfe classification of breast parenchymal patterns as a breast-cancer risk factor together with a set of well-established risk factors for breast cancer. Relative risks of 3.1 for DY to N1, 3.5 for P2 to N1, and 2.0 for P1 to N1 were determined. These are comparable to or greater than other known risk factors found in the same population. The Wolfe classification of parenchymal patterns strengthens the basis for clinical judgment, but should not be used exclusively to determine intervention in an individual patient's care.

(JAMA 1985;254:1050-1053)

Author Affiliations
From the Virginia Mason Research Center, Seattle (Dr Carlile and Ms Hadaway); the Department of Biostatistics, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle (Drs Kopecky and Whitehead); the University of Washington, Seattle (Dr Thompson); the Pacific Health Research Institute, Honolulu (Dr Gilbert); the University of Arizona Medical School, Tucson (Dr Present); the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (Dr Threatt); and the Bess Kaiser Medical Center, Portland, Ore (Dr Krook).

Footnotes
Reprint requests to 100 98th Ave NE, Bellvue, WA 98004 (Dr Carlile).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Recreational Physical Activity and Mammographic Breast Density Characteristics
Reeves et al.
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 2007;16:934-942.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Breast Density and Parenchymal Patterns as Markers of Breast Cancer Risk: A Meta-analysis.
McCormack and dos Santos Silva
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 2006;15:1159-1169.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Wolfe's Parenchymal Pattern and Percentage of the Breast with Mammographic Densities: Redundant or Complementary Classifications?
Brisson et al.
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 2003;12:728-732.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Risk of Subsequent Breast Cancer in Relation to Characteristics of Screening Mammograms from Women Less Than 50 Years of Age
Thomas et al.
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 2002;11:565-571.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Breast Biopsy for Calcifications in Nonpalpable Breast Lesions: A Prospective Study
Franceschi et al.
Arch Surg 1990;125:170-173.
ABSTRACT