Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 173

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Relationship Between Mammographic and Histological Risk Factors for Breast Cancer

Boyd, N. F., Jensen, H. M., Cooke, G., Han, H. Lee·1992·JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Information on breast cancer risk can be obtained both from the histological appearance of the breast epithelium in biopsy specimens and from the pattern of parenchymal densities in the breast revealed by mammography. It is not understood, however, how parenchymal densities influence breast cancer risk or whether these densities are associated with histological risk factors. PURPOSE: We have estimated, in a large cohort of women, the relative risk of detecting carcinoma in situ, atypical hyperplasia, hyperplasia without atypia, or nonproliferative disease in biopsy specimens from women with different extents of mammographic density. We also examined the association between these histological classifications and radiological features present specifically at the biopsy site. METHODS: The source of study material was a population of women aged 40-49 years who were enrolled in the Canadian National Breast Screening Study (NBSS). Mammograms from women who had undergone a biopsy (n = 441) and from a comparison group of women (n = 501) randomly selected from the mammography arm of the NBSS were classified according to the extent of mammographic density. The corresponding histological slides were independently classified by a review pathologist. RESULTS: Compared with women showing no mammographic densities, women with the most extensive densities (i.e., occupying greater than 75% of the breast volume) had a 9.7 times greater risk of developing carcinoma in situ or atypical hyperplasia (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.75-53.97), a 12.2 times greater risk of developing hyperplasia without atypia (95% CI = 2.97-50.14), and a 3.1 times greater risk of developing non-proliferative disease (95% CI = 1.20-8.11). The gradients in risk were not monotonic across the five classifications of mammographic density. The association could not be explained by the presence of mammographic densities at the biopsy site, but calcification at the biopsy site was strongly associated with high-risk histological changes (relative risk = 24; 95% CI = 5.0-156.0). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the radiological patterns referred to as mammographic dysplasia may influence breast cancer risk by virtue of their association with high-risk histological changes in the breast epithelium. IMPLICATIONS: Identification of the factors responsible for high-risk histological changes may offer new insights into the etiology of breast cancer and potentially lead to the development of methods for its prevention.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/jnci/84.15.1170

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

See all 173

Metadata

Authors
Boyd, N. F., Jensen, H. M., Cooke, G., & Han, H. L.
Venue
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Published
1992-08-05
Volume
84
Issue
15
Pages
1170-1179
ISSN
  • 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2105
OpenAlex
W2055164611
Cited by
173
References
0
FWCI
3.04
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: Relationship Between Mammographic and Histological Risk Factors for Breast Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jnci/84.15.1170
The paper
Boyd, N. F., Jensen, H. M., Cooke, G., & Han, H. L. (1992). Relationship Between Mammographic and Histological Risk Factors for Breast Cancer. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/84.15.1170

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.