The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Risk Factors for Breast Cancer in Women with Proliferative Breast Disease
Abstract
To assess the importance of various risk factors for breast cancer in women with benign proliferative breast lesions, we reevaluated 10,366 consecutive breast biopsies performed in women who had presented at three Nashville hospitals. The median duration of follow-up was 17 years for 3303 women, 1925 of whom had proliferative disease. This sample contained 84.4 per cent of the patients originally selected for follow-up. Women having proliferative disease without atypical hyperplasia had a risk of cancer that was 1.9 times the risk in women with nonproliferative lesions (95 per cent confidence interval, 1.2 to 2.9). The risk in women with atypical hyperplasia (atypia) was 5.3 times that in women with nonproliferative lesions (95 per cent confidence interval, 3.1 to 8.8). A family history of breast cancer had little effect on the risk in women with nonproliferative lesions. However, the risk in women with atypia and a family history of breast cancer was 11 times that in women who had nonproliferative lesions without a family history (95 per cent confidence interval, 5.5 to 24). Calcification elevated the cancer risk in patients with proliferative disease. Although cysts alone did not substantially elevate the risk, women with both cysts and a family history of breast cancer had a risk 2.7 times higher than that for women without either of these risk factors (95 per cent confidence interval, 1.5 to 4.6). This study demonstrates that the majority of women (70 per cent) who undergo breast biopsy for benign disease are not at increased risk of cancer. However, patients with a clinically meaningful elevation in cancer risk can be identified on the basis of atypical hyperplasia and a family history of breast cancer.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Practice Bulletin No. 183: postpartum hemorrhage
(2017) · Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000002351 · Cited by 1,406
Benign Breast Disease and the Risk of Breast Cancer
Hartmann, L. C., Sellers, T. A., Frost, M. H., Lingle, W. L., Degnim, A. C., Ghosh, K., Vierkant, R. A., Maloney, S. D., Pankratz, V. S., Hillman, D. W., et al. (2005) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa044383 · Cited by 938
Diagnostic Concordance Among Pathologists Interpreting Breast Biopsy Specimens
Elmore, J. G., Longton, G. M., Carney, P. A., Geller, B. M., Onega, T., Tosteson, A. N. A., Nelson, H. D., Pepe, M. S., Allison, K. H., Schnitt, S. J., et al. (2015) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2015.1405 · Cited by 751
In situ analyses of genome instability in breast cancer
Chin, K., de Solorzano, C. O., Knowles, D., Jones, A., Chou, W., Rodriguez, E. G., Kuo, W.-L., Ljung, B.-M., Chew, K., Myambo, K., et al. (2004) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng1409 · Cited by 361
Tamoxifen and Breast Density in Women at Increased Risk of Breast Cancer
Cuzick, J., Warwick, J., Pinney, E., Warren, R. M. L., & Duffy, S. W. (2004) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/djh106 · Cited by 329
Metadata
- Authors
- Dupont, W. D., & Page, D. L.
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 1985-01-17
- Volume
- 312
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 146-151
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W2328561181
- Cited by
- 1,829
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 33.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Risk Factors for Breast Cancer in Women with Proliferative Breast Disease. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm198501173120303
- The paper
- Dupont, W. D., & Page, D. L. (1985). Risk Factors for Breast Cancer in Women with Proliferative Breast Disease. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm198501173120303
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.