The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Mammographic Density and the Risk and Detection of Breast Cancer
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Extensive mammographic density is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer and makes the detection of cancer by mammography difficult, but the influence of density on risk according to method of cancer detection is unknown. METHODS: We carried out three nested case-control studies in screened populations with 1112 matched case-control pairs. We examined the association of the measured percentage of density in the baseline mammogram with risk of breast cancer, according to method of cancer detection, time since the initiation of screening, and age. RESULTS: As compared with women with density in less than 10% of the mammogram, women with density in 75% or more had an increased risk of breast cancer (odds ratio, 4.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.0 to 7.4), whether detected by screening (odds ratio, 3.5; 95% CI, 2.0 to 6.2) or less than 12 months after a negative screening examination (odds ratio, 17.8; 95% CI, 4.8 to 65.9). Increased risk of breast cancer, whether detected by screening or other means, persisted for at least 8 years after study entry and was greater in younger than in older women. For women younger than the median age of 56 years, 26% of all breast cancers and 50% of cancers detected less than 12 months after a negative screening test were attributable to density in 50% or more of the mammogram. CONCLUSIONS: Extensive mammographic density is strongly associated with the risk of breast cancer detected by screening or between screening tests. A substantial fraction of breast cancers can be attributed to this risk factor.
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
Matrix Crosslinking Forces Tumor Progression by Enhancing Integrin Signaling
Levental, K. R., Yu, H., Kass, L., Lakins, J. N., Egeblad, M., Erler, J. T., Fong, S. F. T., Csiszar, K., Giaccia, A., Weninger, W., et al. (2009) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2009.10.027 · Cited by 4,101
Cox, T. R., & Erler, J. T. (2011) · Disease Models & Mechanisms · doi:10.1242/dmm.004077 · Cited by 1,569
Cuzick, J., Sestak, I., Forbes, J. F., Dowsett, M., Knox, J., Cawthorn, S., Saunders, C., Roche, N., Mansel, R. E., von Minckwitz, G., et al. (2014) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62292-8 · Cited by 590
Breast Tissue Composition and Susceptibility to Breast Cancer
Boyd, N. F., Martin, L. J., Bronskill, M., Yaffe, M. J., Duric, N., & Minkin, S. (2010) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/djq239 · Cited by 478
Self-citationAlbrengues, J., Bertero, T., Grasset, E., Bonan, S., Maiel, M., Bourget, I., Philippe, C., Herraiz Serrano, C., Benamar, S., Croce, O., et al. (2015) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms10204 · Cited by 367
Metadata
- Authors
- Boyd, N. F., Guo, H., Martin, L. J., Sun, L., Stone, J., Fishell, E., Jong, R. A., Hislop, G., Chiarelli, A., Minkin, S., & Yaffe, M. J.
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 2007-01-18
- Volume
- 356
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 227-236
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W2160408484
- Cited by
- 2,478
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 65.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Mammographic Density and the Risk and Detection of Breast Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa062790
- The paper
- Boyd, N. F., Guo, H., Martin, L. J., Sun, L., Stone, J., Fishell, E., Jong, R. A., Hislop, G., Chiarelli, A., Minkin, S., & Yaffe, M. J. (2007). Mammographic Density and the Risk and Detection of Breast Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa062790
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.