Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Review

Raised mammographic density: causative mechanisms and biological consequences

Authors: Michael J. Sherratt, James C. McConnell, Charles H. Streuli

Published in: Breast Cancer Research | Issue 1/2016

Abstract

High mammographic density is the most important risk factor for breast cancer, after ageing. However, the composition, architecture, and mechanical properties of high X-ray density soft tissues, and the causative mechanisms resulting in different mammographic densities, are not well described. Moreover, it is not known how high breast density leads to increased susceptibility for cancer, or the extent to which it causes the genomic changes that characterise the disease. An understanding of these principals may lead to new diagnostic tools and therapeutic interventions.

Glukhova MA, Streuli CH. How integrins control breast biology. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2013;25:633–41.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Muschler J, Streuli CH. Cell-matrix interactions in mammary gland development and breast cancer. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2010;2:a003202.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Streuli CH. Integrins and cell-fate determination. J Cell Sci. 2009;122:171–7.CrossRefPubMed

Metcalfe AD, Hickman JA, Streuli CH. Programmed cell death and the mammary gland--the involvement of the Bcl-2 family members in the control of epithelial apoptosis. Biochem Soc Trans. 1996;24:347S.CrossRefPubMed

Benusiglio PR et al. Common ERBB2 polymorphisms and risk of breast cancer in a white British population: a case-control study. Breast Cancer Res BCR. 2005;7:R204–9.CrossRefPubMed

Types of breast cancer. http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/type/breast-cancer/about/types/.

Slamon DJ et al. Studies of the HER-2/neu proto-oncogene in human breast and ovarian cancer. Science. 1989;244:707–12.CrossRefPubMed

Provenzano PP et al. Collagen reorganization at the tumor-stromal interface facilitates local invasion. BMC Med. 2006;4:38.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Bredfeldt JS et al. Automated quantification of aligned collagen for human breast carcinoma prognosis. J Pathol Inform. 2014;5:28.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Boyd NF et al. Evidence that breast tissue stiffness is associated with risk of breast cancer. PLoS One. 2014;9:e100937.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Yaffe MJ. Mammographic density. Measurement of mammographic density. Breast Cancer Res. 2008;10(209).

12.

Chen J-H, Gulsen G, Su M-Y. Imaging breast density: established and emerging modalities. Transl Oncol. 2015;8:435–45.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

McConnell JC et al. Increased peri-ductal collagen micro-organization may contribute to raised mammographic density. Breast Cancer Res. 2016;18:5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Highnam R, Brady M, Yaffe MJ, et al. Robust Breast Composition Measurement -Volpara (TM). In: Marti J, Oliver A, Freixenet J, et al, editors. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6136. Girona, SPAIN: Conference: 10th International Workshop on Digital Mammography, Univ Girona, Comp Vision & Robot Grp. 2010. p. 342-9.

15.

Ekpo EU, McEntee MF. Measurement of breast density with digital breast tomosynthesis—a systematic review. Br J Radiol. 2014;87:20140460.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Lubomir M, Hadjiiski GD. Medical Imaging 2015: Computer-Aided Diagnosis. Tourassi: Proc. of SPIE Vol. 9414, 941417. SPIE · CCC code: 1605-7422/15/$18. 2015. doi:10.1117/12.2082691.

17.

Yaghjyan L, Colditz GA, Rosner B, Tamimi RM. Mammographic breast density and breast cancer risk: interactions of percent density, absolute dense, and non-dense areas with breast cancer risk factors. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;150:181–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Huo CW et al. Mammographic density—a review on the current understanding of its association with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;144:479–502.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Wolfe JN. Risk for breast cancer development determined by mammographic parenchymal pattern. Cancer. 1976;37:2486–92.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Pettersson A, et al. Mammographic density phenotypes and risk of breast cancer: a meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106. doi:10.1093/jnci/dju078.

21.

Barker HE et al. LOXL2-mediated matrix remodeling in metastasis and mammary gland involution. Cancer Res. 2011;71:1561–72.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Levental KR et al. Matrix crosslinking forces tumor progression by enhancing integrin signaling. Cell. 2009;139:891–906.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Warwick J et al. Mammographic breast density refines Tyrer-Cuzick estimates of breast cancer risk in high-risk women: findings from the placebo arm of the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study I. Breast Cancer Res. 2014;16:451.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Harvey JA et al. Histologic changes in the breast with menopausal hormone therapy use: correlation with breast density, estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and proliferation indices. Menopause N Y N. 2008;15:67–73.

25.

Alowami S, Troup S, Al-Haddad S, Kirkpatrick I, Watson PH. Mammographic density is related to stroma and stromal proteoglycan expression. Breast Cancer Res. 2003;5:R129–35.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Skandalis SS et al. Versican but not decorin accumulation is related to malignancy in mammographically detected high density and malignant-appearing microcalcifications in non-palpable breast carcinomas. BMC Cancer. 2011;11:314.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Guo YP et al. Growth factors and stromal matrix proteins associated with mammographic densities. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2001;10:243–8.

28.

Ingman WV, Wyckoff J, Gouon-Evans V, Condeelis J, Pollard JW. Macrophages promote collagen fibrillogenesis around terminal end buds of the developing mammary gland. Dev Dyn. 2006;235:3222–9.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Britt K, Ingman W, Huo C, Chew G, Thompson E. The pathobiology of mammographic density. J Cancer Biol Res. 2014;2:1021.

30.

DeFilippis RA et al. CD36 repression activates a multicellular stromal program shared by high mammographic density and tumor tissues. Cancer Discov. 2012;2:826–39.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Huo CW et al. High mammographic density is associated with an increase in stromal collagen and immune cells within the mammary epithelium. Breast Cancer Res. 2015;17:79.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Acerbi I et al. Human breast cancer invasion and aggression correlates with ECM stiffening and immune cell infiltration. Integr Biol Quant Biosci Nano Macro. 2015;7:1120–34.

33.

Kadler KE. The needle in the ECM haystack. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2014;15:769.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Naba A, Clauser KR, Lamar JM, Carr SA, Hynes RO. Extracellular matrix signatures of human mammary carcinoma identify novel metastasis promoters. eLife. 2014;3:e01308.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

O’Brien JH, Vanderlinden LA, Schedin PJ, Hansen KC. Rat mammary extracellular matrix composition and response to ibuprofen treatment during postpartum involution by differential GeLC-MS/MS analysis. J Proteome Res. 2012;11:4894–905.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

36.

Norris RA et al. Periostin regulates collagen fibrillogenesis and the biomechanical properties of connective tissues. J Cell Biochem. 2007;101:695–711.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

37.

Wang Z, Ouyang G. Periostin: a bridge between cancer stem cells and their metastatic niche. Cell Stem Cell. 2012;10:111–2.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Grässel S, Bauer RJ. Collagen XVI in health and disease. Matrix Biol J Int Soc Matrix Biol. 2013;32:64–73.CrossRef

39.

Ratzinger S, Grässel S, Dowejko A, Reichert TE, Bauer RJ. Induction of type XVI collagen expression facilitates proliferation of oral cancer cells. Matrix Biol. 2011;30(2):118–25. doi:10.1016/j.matbio.2011.01.001. Epub 2011 Jan 18. PMID:21251976.

40.

Pankow JS et al. Genetic analysis of mammographic breast density in adult women: evidence of a gene effect. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1997;89:549–56.CrossRefPubMed

41.

Stone J, Dite GS, Gunasekara A, English DR, McCredie MR, Giles GG, Cawson JN, Hegele RA, Chiarelli AM, Yaffe MJ, Boyd NF, Hopper JL. The heritability of mammographically dense and nondense breast tissue. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006;15(4):612–7.CrossRefPubMed

42.

Odefrey F et al. Common genetic variants associated with breast cancer and mammographic density measures that predict disease. Cancer Res. 2010;70:1449–58.CrossRefPubMed

43.

Stevens KN et al. Identification of a novel percent mammographic density locus at 12q24. Hum Mol Genet. 2012;21:3299–305.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

44.

Vachon CM et al. Common breast cancer susceptibility variants in LSP1 and RAD51L1 are associated with mammographic density measures that predict breast cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2012;21:1156–66.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

45.

Lindström S et al. Common variants in ZNF365 are associated with both mammographic density and breast cancer risk. Nat Genet. 2011;43:185–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

46.

Fernandez-Navarro P et al. Genome wide association study identifies a novel putative mammographic density locus at 1q12-q21. Int J Cancer J Int Cancer. 2015;136:2427–36.CrossRef

47.

Stone J et al. Novel associations between common breast cancer susceptibility variants and risk-predicting mammographic density measures. Cancer Res. 2015;75:2457–67.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

48.

Brand JS et al. Identification of two novel mammographic density loci at 6Q25.1. Breast Cancer Res. 2015;17:75.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

49.

Ramón Y, Cajal T, et al. Mammographic density and breast cancer in women from high risk families. Breast Cancer Res. 2015;17:93.CrossRef

50.

Sun X et al. Relationship of mammographic density and gene expression: analysis of normal breast tissue surrounding breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19:4972–82.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

51.

Wang Y et al. Clonal evolution in breast cancer revealed by single nucleus genome sequencing. Nature. 2014;512:155–60.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

52.

Pardo I et al. Next-generation transcriptome sequencing of the premenopausal breast epithelium using specimens from a normal human breast tissue bank. Breast Cancer Res. 2014;16:R26.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

53.

Förnvik D et al. No evidence for shedding of circulating tumor cells to the peripheral venous blood as a result of mammographic breast compression. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;141:187–95.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

54.

Lorenzen J et al. MR elastography of the breast: preliminary clinical results. RöFo Fortschritte Auf Dem Geb Röntgenstrahlen Nukl. 2002;174:830–4.CrossRef

55.

Wojcinski S et al. Ultrasound real-time elastography can predict malignancy in BI-RADS®-US 3 lesions. BMC Cancer. 2013;13:159.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

56.

Akhtar R, Sherratt MJ, Cruickshank JK, Derby B. Characterizing the elastic properties of tissues. Mater Today Kidlington Engl. 2011;14:96–105.CrossRef

57.

Danielson KG et al. Targeted disruption of decorin leads to abnormal collagen fibril morphology and skin fragility. J Cell Biol. 1997;136:729–43.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

58.

Ishiba T et al. Periostin suppression induces decorin secretion leading to reduced breast cancer cell motility and invasion. Sci Rep. 2014;4:7069.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

59.

El-Domyati M et al. Intrinsic aging vs. photoaging: a comparative histopathological, immunohistochemical, and ultrastructural study of skin. Exp Dermatol. 2002;11:398–405.CrossRefPubMed

60.

Naylor EC, Watson REB, Sherratt MJ. Molecular aspects of skin ageing. Maturitas. 2011;69:249–56.CrossRefPubMed

61.

Sherratt MJ. Tissue elasticity and the ageing elastic fibre. Age Dordr Neth. 2009;31:305–25.CrossRef

62.

Bailey AJ. Molecular mechanisms of ageing in connective tissues. Mech Ageing Dev. 2001;122:735–55.CrossRefPubMed

63.

Sharaf H et al. Advanced glycation endproducts increase proliferation, migration and invasion of the breast cancer cell line MDA-MB-231. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1852;2015:429–41.

64.

Morgan MP, Cooke MM, McCarthy GM. Microcalcifications associated with breast cancer: an epiphenomenon or biologically significant feature of selected tumors? J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia. 2005;10:181–7.CrossRefPubMed

65.

Butcher DT, Alliston T, Weaver VM. A tense situation: forcing tumour progression. Nat Rev Cancer. 2009;9:108–22.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

66.

Sawada Y et al. Force sensing by mechanical extension of the Src family kinase substrate p130Cas. Cell. 2006;127:1015–26.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

67.

Mouw JK et al. Tissue mechanics modulate microRNA-dependent PTEN expression to regulate malignant progression. Nat Med. 2014;20:360–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

68.

Provenzano PP, Eliceiri KW, Keely PJ. Shining new light on 3D cell motility and the metastatic process. Trends Cell Biol. 2009;19:638–48.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

69.

Dupont S et al. Role of YAP/TAZ in mechanotransduction. Nature. 2011;474:179–83.CrossRefPubMed

70.

Piccolo S, Dupont S, Cordenonsi M. The biology of YAP/TAZ: hippo signaling and beyond. Physiol Rev. 2014;94:1287–312.CrossRefPubMed

71.

Olson EN, Nordheim A. Linking actin dynamics and gene transcription to drive cellular motile functions. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2010;11:353–65.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

72.

Weinl C et al. Endothelial SRF/MRTF ablation causes vascular disease phenotypes in murine retinae. J Clin Invest. 2013;123:2193–206.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

73.

Wang N, Tytell JD, Ingber DE. Mechanotransduction at a distance: mechanically coupling the extracellular matrix with the nucleus. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2009;10:75–82.CrossRefPubMed

74.

Maya-Mendoza A, Bartek J, Jackson DA, Streuli C. Cellular microenvironment controls the nuclear architecture of breast epithelia through β1-integrin. Cell Cycle. 2016;15:345.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

75.

Hariri M et al. Experimental manipulation of radiographic density in mouse mammary gland. Breast Cancer Res. 2004;6:R540–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

76.

Chew GL et al. High and low mammographic density human breast tissues maintain histological differential in murine tissue engineering chambers. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;135:177–87.CrossRefPubMed

77.

Cuzick J et al. Tamoxifen-induced reduction in mammographic density and breast cancer risk reduction: a nested case-control study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103:744–52.CrossRefPubMed

78.

Brisson J, Brisson B, Coté G, Maunsell E, Bérubé S, Robert J. Tamoxifen and mammographic breast densities. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2000;9(9):911-5.

79.

Chen J-H et al. Reduction of breast density following tamoxifen treatment evaluated by 3-D MRI: preliminary study. Magn Reson Imaging. 2011;29:91–8.CrossRefPubMed

80.

Lasco A et al. Effect of long-term treatment with raloxifene on mammary density in postmenopausal women. Menopause N Y N. 2006;13:787–92.CrossRef

81.

Lienart V et al. Effect of preventive hormonal therapy on breast density: a systematic qualitative review. ScientificWorldJournal. 2014;2014:942386.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

82.

Li J et al. Mammographic density reduction is a prognostic marker of response to adjuvant tamoxifen therapy in postmenopausal patients with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:2249–56.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

83.

Conklin MW et al. Aligned collagen is a prognostic signature for survival in human breast carcinoma. Am J Pathol. 2011;178:1221–32.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

84.

Vachon CM, Kushi LH, Cerhan JR, Kuni CC, Sellers TA. Association of diet and mammographic breast density in the Minnesota breast cancer family cohort. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2000;9(2):151-60. PMID:10698475.

85.

Greendale GA et al. Postmenopausal hormone therapy and change in mammographic density. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95:30–7.CrossRefPubMed

86.

Yan S et al. Let-7f inhibits glioma cell proliferation, migration, and invasion by targeting periostin. J Cell Biochem. 2015;116:1680–92.CrossRefPubMed

87.

Boyd NF, Martin LJ, Yaffe MJ, Minkin S. Mammographic density and breast cancer risk: current understanding and future prospects. Breast Cancer Res. 2011;13:223.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Title: Raised mammographic density: causative mechanisms and biological consequences
Authors: Michael J. Sherratt
James C. McConnell
Charles H. Streuli
Publication date: 01-12-2016
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: Breast Cancer Research / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1465-542X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-016-0701-9

Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras

Prof. Fabrice Barlesi

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

Reduced BRCA1 transcript levels in freshly isolated blood leukocytes from BRCA1 mutation carriers is mutation specific

Accurate prediction of response to endocrine therapy in breast cancer patients: current and future biomarkers

Erratum to: JMJD2A contributes to breast cancer progression through transcriptional repression of the tumor suppressor ARHI

Activation of IGF1R/p110β/AKT/mTOR confers resistance to α-specific PI3K inhibition

Deep targeted sequencing of 12 breast cancer susceptibility regions in 4611 women across four different ethnicities

Circadian clocks and breast cancer

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer