Published in

American Association for Cancer Research, Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 7(16), p. 1479-1484, 2007

DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.epi-07-0107

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Mammographic density and candidate gene variants: A twins and sisters study

This paper is made freely available by the publisher.
This paper is made freely available by the publisher.

Full text: Download

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Orange circle
Postprint: archiving restricted
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

Abstract Background: Mammographic density, the light/white radiographic appearance on a mammogram that represents connective and epithelial tissue, is a strong risk factor for breast cancer which seems to be highly heritable. Little is known about its genetic determinants. Methods: We studied 457 women from 207 sisterhoods (104 monozygotic twins, 182 dizygotic twins, and 171 singletons). Percentage mammographic density (PMD) as well as dense area and nondense area were calculated using a computer-assisted method. We measured six single nucleotide polymorphisms from six candidate genes (COMT, HSD3B1, IGFBP3, HER2, XPD, and XRCC3). Associations between genotypes and mammographic measures were tested (a) cross-sectionally using a multivariate normal model fitted using FISHER that allowed separate correlations for monozygotic, dizygotic, and nontwin pairs and (b) within sister pairs using paired t tests. Results: Cross-sectionally, each additional copy of the HSD3B1 Asn367Thr variant allele was associated with lower PMD (−3.47% per allele; SE = 1.65; P = 0.035). Within-pair regression estimates confirmed this association. There was no evidence for an association between the mammographic density measures and any of the other variants studied. Conclusion: We have replicated an association between a variant in the HSD3B1 gene and PMD, which suggests that HSD3B1 may be genetic determinant of mammographic density. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2007;16(7):1479–84)