Mammographic breast density (MBD) is a risk factor for breast cancer, but its molecular basis is poorly understood. Growth factors stimulate cellular and epithelial proliferation and could influence MBD via these mechanisms. Studies investigating the associations of circulating growth factors with MBD have, however, yielded conflicting results especially in postmenopausal women. We, therefore, investigated the associations of plasma growth factor gene expression [insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-1, IGF-binding protein 3, FGF-1, FGF-12, TGFβ1 and bone morphogenetic protein (BMP)-2] with MBD in postmenopausal women. We used NanoString nCounter platform to quantify plasma growth factor gene expression and Volpara to evaluate volumetric MBD measures. We investigated the associations of growth factor gene expression with MBD using both multiple linear regression (fold change) and multinomial logistic regression models, adjusted for potential confounders. The mean age of the 368 women enrolled was 58 years (range, 50–64). In analyses using linear regression models, one unit increase in IGF-1 gene expression was associated with a 35% higher volumetric percent density (VPD, 1.35; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.13–1.60; P = 0.001). There were suggestions that TGFβ1 gene expression was positively associated with VPD while BMP-2 gene expression was inversely associated with VPD, but these were not statistically significant. In analyses using multinomial logistic regression, TGFβ1 gene expression was 33% higher (OR = 1.33; 95% CI, 1.13–1.56; P = 0.0008) in women with extremely dense breasts than those with almost entirely fatty breasts. There were no associations between growth factor gene expression and dense volume or nondense volume. Our study provides insights into the associations of growth factors with MBD in postmenopausal women and requires confirmation in other study populations.

Prevention Relevance:

Mammographic breast density is a strong risk factor for breast cancer. Understanding its underlying biological mechanisms could have utility in breast cancer prevention.

Breast cancer incidence increases with age and estimates show that 1 in 8 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer within their lifetime (1). Mammographic breast density (MBD), which reflects the proportion of epithelial and stromal tissues relative to adipose tissue in the breast, is a strong risk factor for breast cancer (2, 3). Women with >75% breast dense tissue have a 4- to 6-fold increased risk of breast cancer (4, 5). In addition to being a strong risk factor, MBD and breast cancer share similar biological and genetic pathways. Thus, MBD is a surrogate marker of breast cancer development and an intermediate phenotype (6, 7). MBD partially mediates the association of some risk factors like age, body mass index (BMI), history of biopsy-confirmed benign breast disease with breast cancer risk (8). Thus, deciphering the biological mechanisms that underlie MBD could have utility in understanding markers of breast cancer risk.

Growth factors stimulate cell proliferation. As such, elevated growth factor levels could be positively associated with MBD. Insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-1 regulates proliferation of mammary epithelial cells, stimulates mitosis and inhibits apoptosis (9), and has been associated with breast cancer risk (10, 11). IGF-1 binds to IGF-binding proteins (IGFBP) to facilitate its transport and increase half-life. There are conflicting reports on the associations of circulating IGF-1, IGFBP-3 with MBD. Specifically, there appears to be differential associations by menopausal status with some studies suggesting associations in premenopausal women but more limited evidence for postmenopausal women (12–15). To the best of our knowledge, no studies have, however, evaluated the associations of plasma IGF gene expression with volumetric measures of MBD. There is also a unique opportunity to clarify the association of IGF-1 and IGFBP3 with MBD in postmenopausal women.

Other growth factors that could have biological relevance include FGF, TGFβ and bone morphogenetic protein (BMP)-2. FGFs influence ductal outgrowth in the breast (16). FGFs’ binding to their receptors (17) induce matrix metalloproteinase 9, which is involved in extracellular matrix remodeling (18). The relationship between FGF gene expression and MBD in postmenopausal women is understudied (19, 20) because previous studies were in premenopausal women. TGFβ induces cellular transformation in normal fibroblasts (21) and TGFβ signaling is decreased in women with increased MBD (22, 23). BMP-2 is essential for bone formation, and its possible role in proliferation, and differentiation has been increasingly recognized (24), but to the best of our knowledge, no studies have reported on the associations of BMP-2 with MBD.

The goal of our study is to investigate for the first time the associations of growth factor (IGF-1, IGFBP-3, FGF-1, FGF-12, TGFβ1, and BMP-2) gene expression in plasma with volumetric measures of MBD in postmenopausal women. Study findings could provide new insight into the associations of growth factors with MBD in postmenopausal women because previous studies have investigated the associations of circulating protein levels and single nucleotide polymorphisms in growth factors and have focused mainly on premenopausal women.

Study population

The study was comprised of 400 postmenopausal women who were recruited during annual routine screening mammography at the Joanne Knight Breast Health Center at the Siteman Cancer Center at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri between October 2017 and September 2018 (25). After excluding 32 women with error messages during conversion of their raw mammogram images to volumetric measures, our final study population consisted of 368 women (Table 1).

Table 1.

Characteristicsa of 368 postmenopausal women recruited during annual screening mammogram by VPD categories.

CharacteristicsVPD < 3.5% N = 52VPD ≥ 3.5 and <7.5% N = 234VPD ≥ 7.5 and <15.5% N = 68VPD ≥ 15.5% N = 14P valueb
Age (years) 58.2 ± 3.5 58.1 ± 3.9 57.6 ± 3.7 56.7 ± 4.2 0.50 
Age at menarche (years) 12.2 ± 1.7 12.8 ± 1.7 13.0 ± 1.6 13.5 ± 1.7 0.03 
BMI (kg/m236.9 ± 8.3 32.1 ± 6.9 25.8 ± 5.4 22.8 ± 3.5 <0.01 
Race/Ethnicity     0.01 
 Non-Hispanic White 23 (44.2%) 146 (62.4%) 47 (69.1%) 12 (85.7%)  
 Black or African American 26 (50.0%) 85 (36.3%) 18 (26.5%) 2 (14.3%)  
 Other 3 (5.8%) 3 (1.3%) 3 (4.4%) 0 (0.0%)  
Education     0.06 
 High school or less than high school 12 (23.1%) 40 (17.1%) 10 (14.7%) 2 (14.3%)  
 Post high-school training or some college 16 (30.8%) 75 (32.1%) 14 (20.6%) 1 (7.1%)  
 College graduate 18 (34.6%) 60 (25.6%) 24 (35.3%) 4 (28.6%)  
 Postgraduate 6 (11.5%) 57 (24.4%) 20 (29.4%) 7 (50.0%)  
Alcohol use     0.42 
 No 26 (50.0%) 94 (40.2%) 24 (35.3%) 5 (35.7%)  
 Yes 26 (50.0%) 138 (59.0%) 44 (64.7%) 9 (64.3%)  
Family history of breast cancer     0.9 
 No 41 (78.9%) 169 (72.2%) 51 (75.0%) 10 (71.4%)  
 Yes 11 (21.2%) 59 (25.2%) 17 (25.0%) 4 (28.6%)  
Parity and age at first birth     0.18 
 Nulliparous 11 (21.2%) 42 (18.0%) 10 (14.7%) 0 (0.0%)  
 1–2 children, <25 years 8 (15.4%) 58 (24.8%) 17 (25.0%) 3 (21.4%)  
 1–2 children, 25–29 years 9 (17.3%) 40 (17.1%) 13 (19.1%) 2 (14.3%)  
 1–2 children, ≥30 years 5 (9.6%) 29 (12.4%) 16 (23.5%) 5 (35.7%)  
 ≥3 children, <25 years 14 (26.9%) 43 (18.4%) 7 (10.3%) 2 (14.3%)  
 ≥3 children, ≥25 years 5 (9.6%) 21 (9.0%) 5 (7.4%) 2 (14.3%)  
Breastfeeding     0.19 
 No 21 (40.4%) 92 (39.3%) 23 (33.8%) 3 (21.4%)  
 Yes 19 (36.5%) 99 (42.3%) 35 (51.5%) 11 (78.6%)  
 Nulliparous 11 (21.2%) 42 (18.0%) 10 (14.7%) 0 (0.0%)  
Menopausal hormone therapy use     0.74 
 No 37 (71.2%) 157 (67.1%) 43 (63.2%) 8 (57.1%)  
 Yes 15 (28.9%) 77 (32.9%) 24 (35.3%) 6 (42.9%)  
Growth factor gene expressionc      
FGF-1 52.5 ± 12.3 55.1 ± 12.9 56.3 ± 12.2 54.8 ± 9.3 0.43 
FGF-12 32.8 ± 7.6 36.1 ± 9.3 37.3 ± 9.7 37.6 ± 14.3 0.06 
TGFB1 16,280.1 ± 5,745.4 17,128.4 ± 6,388.0 16,595.4 ± 4,635.1 20749.8 ± 13544.5 0.13 
BMP-2 47.8 ± 33.0 47.6 ± 33.6 45.9 ± 30.0 32.5 ± 15.1 0.40 
IGFBP-3 340.2 ± 174.2 330.8 ± 163.0 293.9 ± 122.4 274.3 ± 142.8 0.19 
IGF-1 6.6 ± 9.4 5.4 ± 5.9 6.4 ± 5.8 17.0 ± 35.9 <0.01 
CharacteristicsVPD < 3.5% N = 52VPD ≥ 3.5 and <7.5% N = 234VPD ≥ 7.5 and <15.5% N = 68VPD ≥ 15.5% N = 14P valueb
Age (years) 58.2 ± 3.5 58.1 ± 3.9 57.6 ± 3.7 56.7 ± 4.2 0.50 
Age at menarche (years) 12.2 ± 1.7 12.8 ± 1.7 13.0 ± 1.6 13.5 ± 1.7 0.03 
BMI (kg/m236.9 ± 8.3 32.1 ± 6.9 25.8 ± 5.4 22.8 ± 3.5 <0.01 
Race/Ethnicity     0.01 
 Non-Hispanic White 23 (44.2%) 146 (62.4%) 47 (69.1%) 12 (85.7%)  
 Black or African American 26 (50.0%) 85 (36.3%) 18 (26.5%) 2 (14.3%)  
 Other 3 (5.8%) 3 (1.3%) 3 (4.4%) 0 (0.0%)  
Education     0.06 
 High school or less than high school 12 (23.1%) 40 (17.1%) 10 (14.7%) 2 (14.3%)  
 Post high-school training or some college 16 (30.8%) 75 (32.1%) 14 (20.6%) 1 (7.1%)  
 College graduate 18 (34.6%) 60 (25.6%) 24 (35.3%) 4 (28.6%)  
 Postgraduate 6 (11.5%) 57 (24.4%) 20 (29.4%) 7 (50.0%)  
Alcohol use     0.42 
 No 26 (50.0%) 94 (40.2%) 24 (35.3%) 5 (35.7%)  
 Yes 26 (50.0%) 138 (59.0%) 44 (64.7%) 9 (64.3%)  
Family history of breast cancer     0.9 
 No 41 (78.9%) 169 (72.2%) 51 (75.0%) 10 (71.4%)  
 Yes 11 (21.2%) 59 (25.2%) 17 (25.0%) 4 (28.6%)  
Parity and age at first birth     0.18 
 Nulliparous 11 (21.2%) 42 (18.0%) 10 (14.7%) 0 (0.0%)  
 1–2 children, <25 years 8 (15.4%) 58 (24.8%) 17 (25.0%) 3 (21.4%)  
 1–2 children, 25–29 years 9 (17.3%) 40 (17.1%) 13 (19.1%) 2 (14.3%)  
 1–2 children, ≥30 years 5 (9.6%) 29 (12.4%) 16 (23.5%) 5 (35.7%)  
 ≥3 children, <25 years 14 (26.9%) 43 (18.4%) 7 (10.3%) 2 (14.3%)  
 ≥3 children, ≥25 years 5 (9.6%) 21 (9.0%) 5 (7.4%) 2 (14.3%)  
Breastfeeding     0.19 
 No 21 (40.4%) 92 (39.3%) 23 (33.8%) 3 (21.4%)  
 Yes 19 (36.5%) 99 (42.3%) 35 (51.5%) 11 (78.6%)  
 Nulliparous 11 (21.2%) 42 (18.0%) 10 (14.7%) 0 (0.0%)  
Menopausal hormone therapy use     0.74 
 No 37 (71.2%) 157 (67.1%) 43 (63.2%) 8 (57.1%)  
 Yes 15 (28.9%) 77 (32.9%) 24 (35.3%) 6 (42.9%)  
Growth factor gene expressionc      
FGF-1 52.5 ± 12.3 55.1 ± 12.9 56.3 ± 12.2 54.8 ± 9.3 0.43 
FGF-12 32.8 ± 7.6 36.1 ± 9.3 37.3 ± 9.7 37.6 ± 14.3 0.06 
TGFB1 16,280.1 ± 5,745.4 17,128.4 ± 6,388.0 16,595.4 ± 4,635.1 20749.8 ± 13544.5 0.13 
BMP-2 47.8 ± 33.0 47.6 ± 33.6 45.9 ± 30.0 32.5 ± 15.1 0.40 
IGFBP-3 340.2 ± 174.2 330.8 ± 163.0 293.9 ± 122.4 274.3 ± 142.8 0.19 
IGF-1 6.6 ± 9.4 5.4 ± 5.9 6.4 ± 5.8 17.0 ± 35.9 <0.01 

Note: Missing values (Education; n = 2, Alcohol use; n = 2, Family breast cancer history; n = 6, Parity and age at first birth; n = 1, Breastfeeding; n = 2, Menopausal hormone therapy use; N = 1).

aMean ± SD presented for continuous variables. Percentages presented for categorical variables.

bP values were calculated using ANOVA (for continuous variables) and χ2 tests (for categorical variables).

cLog2-transformed values were used in our analyses but raw values are presented here.

Inclusion criteria included: (i) age 50 to 64 years, (ii) postmenopausal, (iii) able to comply with all required study procedures and schedule, including provision of blood samples at the time of enrollment. Exclusion criteria included: (i) history of any cancer, including breast cancer; (ii) history of breast augmentation, reduction, or implants; (iii) history of denosumab use over the previous 6 months; and (iv) history of selective estrogen receptor modulators use over the previous 6 months. We defined postmenopausal as having a history of bilateral oophorectomy, age 60 or older, or if under age 60, had been amenorrheic for at least 12 months. These criteria are a modification of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) postmenopausal definition, which does not require measurement of serum hormone levels (26).

Study participants completed blood draw and questionnaires that ascertained breast cancer risk factors on the day of their mammogram. Blood samples were processed and stored at −80°C at the Tissue Procurement Core at Siteman Cancer Center (St. Louis, Missouri) within 60 minutes of collection. Height was measured using a stadiometer and current weight and percent body fat were measured using OMRON Full Body Sensor Body Composition Monitor and Scale model HBF-514FC. We calculated BMI by dividing current weight (kg) by height (m) squared (kg/m2).

The study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Washington University School of Medicine. Written informed consent to participate in this study was provided by all the participants. This study was conducted in accordance with recognized ethical guidelines such as the U.S. Common Rule.

Growth factor gene expression

We performed RNA sequencing to quantify IGF-1, IGFBP-3, FGF-1, FGF-12, TGFβ1, and BMP-2 gene expression at the McDonnell Genome Institute, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. Gene expression levels were measured in RNA isolated from plasma, using the NanoString “nCounter XT Codeset Gene Expression Assays” protocol (NanoString Technologies, Seattle, Washington). Hybridization of the RNA to the custom XT Codeset was performed with inputs of 100 ng (18 samples), 180 ng (1 sample), and 200 ng (384 samples). Following hybridization, samples were processed on the NanoString Prep Station where they were purified and immobilized on a sample cartridge for data collection. The output for each sample was imported into nSolver Analysis Software for quality control and analysis. Binding densities ranged from 0.09 to 0.34. Per NanoString nCounter assay manufacturer's guidelines, transcript counts were normalized using housekeeping genes.

MBD assessment

Volumetric percent density (VPD), dense volume (DV) and non-dense volume (NDV) were measured using Volpara version 1.5 (Matakina Technology Ltd). NDV is the difference in total volume of the breast and the absolute volume of the fibroglandular tissue in the breast (cm3). Volpara measures MBD using an algorithm that determines X-ray attenuation per pixel. A conversion of the attenuation is made to estimate tissue composition and the output is a density map (27) including the mean of the cranial–caudal and mediolateral oblique views of each breast. These VPD ranges are equivalent to the standard Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS, 5th edition) groups (28): (i) VPD <3.5% is equivalent to BI-RADS Group 1 and have entirely fatty breasts, (ii) VPD between 3.5 and 7.5% equates to BI-RADS Group 2 with scattered areas of fibroglandular density, (iii) VPD between 7.5 and 15.5% is equivalent to BI-RADS Group 3 with heterogeneously dense breasts, and (iv) VPD ≥15.5% is classified as BI-RADS Group 4 with extremely dense breasts (29).

Statistical analyses

Statistical analyses were performed with the NanoString nSolver Analysis System 4.0 (NanoString Technologies) using the Advanced Analysis package 2.0 and its custom analysis pipeline (30). VPD, DV, and NDV were all logarithmically transformed because of the skewed distributions. All analyses were performed on curated log2-transformed normalized counts. We evaluated correlations between the genes controlling for age using partial Pearson correlation coefficients (Table 2).

Table 2.

Correlations of growth factor gene expression in postmenopausal women.

Pearson's correlation coefficient (log2 transformed) and P values
GeneFGF-1FGF-12TGFB1IGFBP-3IGF-1BMP-2
FGF-1 1.00 0.49 0.3 –0.17 –0.01 0.31 
  P < 0.001 P < 0.001 P = 0.001 P < 0.85 P < 0.001 
FGF-12  1.00 0.46 –0.17 0.03 0.16 
   P < 0.001 P < 0.001 P = 0.60 P = 0.001 
TGFβ1   1.00 0.08 0.03 –0.02 
    P = 0.14 P = 0.57 P = 0.64 
IGFBP-3    1.00 0.05 –0.17 
     P = 0.34 P < 0.001 
IGF-1     1.00 0.04 
      P = 0.40 
BMP-2      1.00 
Pearson's correlation coefficient (log2 transformed) and P values
GeneFGF-1FGF-12TGFB1IGFBP-3IGF-1BMP-2
FGF-1 1.00 0.49 0.3 –0.17 –0.01 0.31 
  P < 0.001 P < 0.001 P = 0.001 P < 0.85 P < 0.001 
FGF-12  1.00 0.46 –0.17 0.03 0.16 
   P < 0.001 P < 0.001 P = 0.60 P = 0.001 
TGFβ1   1.00 0.08 0.03 –0.02 
    P = 0.14 P = 0.57 P = 0.64 
IGFBP-3    1.00 0.05 –0.17 
     P = 0.34 P < 0.001 
IGF-1     1.00 0.04 
      P = 0.40 
BMP-2      1.00 

Differential gene expression analysis

We performed differential expression analysis to quantify plasma growth factor gene expression levels in relation to MBD adjusting for the following confounders: current age (continuous, years), BMI (continuous, kg/m2), race (Non-Hispanic white/African American/Others), menopausal hormone therapy use (yes/no), and parity and age at first birth (nulliparous; 1–2 children, <25 years; 1–2 children, 25–29 years; 1–2 children, ≥30 years; ≥3 children, <25 years; ≥3 children, ≥25 years).

We used multiple linear regression models to evaluate the associations of growth factor gene expression (predictor) with MBD measures in continuous form (outcome). The fold change in gene expression was estimated using a simplified negative binomial model; the default estimation method in NanoString nSolver Analysis System 4.0 (30). We present linear fold change and its confidence interval (CI) along with a P value. Linear fold change was calculated from log2 fold change via the antilog function. Overexpressed genes were defined as linear fold change >1, whereas under-expressed genes were defined as linear fold change <1. These data are presented in Table 3 and Fig. 1.

Table 3.

Associations of growth factor gene expression with VPD.

mRNA expressionLinear fold changeLower confidence limitUpper confidence limitP
FGF-1 0.99 0.94 1.05 0.73 
FGF-12 1.03 0.96 1.10 0.49 
TGFβ1 1.04 0.99 1.09 0.09 
IGFBP-3 0.97 0.90 1.05 0.48 
IGF-1 1.35 1.13 1.60 0.001 
BMP-2 0.87 0.75 1.01 0.07 
mRNA expressionLinear fold changeLower confidence limitUpper confidence limitP
FGF-1 0.99 0.94 1.05 0.73 
FGF-12 1.03 0.96 1.10 0.49 
TGFβ1 1.04 0.99 1.09 0.09 
IGFBP-3 0.97 0.90 1.05 0.48 
IGF-1 1.35 1.13 1.60 0.001 
BMP-2 0.87 0.75 1.01 0.07 

Note: Multivariable model adjusted for race (non-Hispanic White, Black or African American, other), current age (continuous), BMI (continuous), menopausal hormone therapy use (no, yes, missing), parity, and age at first birth (categorical).

Figure 1.

Associations of growth factor gene expression with MBD. Growth factor gene expression association with VPD (A), DV (B), and NDV (C). Error bars represent upper and lower confidence limits.

Figure 1.

Associations of growth factor gene expression with MBD. Growth factor gene expression association with VPD (A), DV (B), and NDV (C). Error bars represent upper and lower confidence limits.

Close modal

Multinomial logistic regression

We further used multinomial logistic regression models to evaluate the associations of growth factor gene expression with categories of VPD (outcome), adjusted for the above covariates and age at menarche (continuous, years). ORs and 95% CIs were calculated using Statistical Analysis System version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina). P values <0.05 were considered statistically significant in this study. These data are presented in Table 4.

Table 4.

Associations of growth factor gene expression with MBD in categories.

Group 1Group 2Group 3Group 4
VPD < 3.5%VPD ≥ 3.5 and <7.5%VPD ≥ 7.5 and <15.5%VPD ≥ 15.5%
FGF-1 1.0 (Reference) 1.03 (0.93–1.14) P = 0.61 1.05 (0.92–1.19) P = 0.51 0.95 (0.78–1.17) P = 0.66 
FGF-12 1.0 (Reference) 1.08 (0.96–1.22) P = 0.21 1.11 (0.95–1.30) P = 0.20 1.04 (0.81–1.33) P = 0.76 
TGFβ1 1.0 (Reference) 1.05 (0.97–1.14) P = 0.22 1.03 (0.93–1.14) P = 0.61 1.33 (1.13–1.56) P < 0.001 
IGFBP-3 1.0 (Reference) 1.04 (0.90–1.20) P = 0.58 0.90 (0.75–1.08) P = 0.27 0.82 (0.61–1.09) P = 0.17 
IGF-1 1.0 (Reference) 0.78 (0.57–1.07) P = 0.13 0.83 (0.54–1.26) P = 0.38 2.93 (1.72–4.98) P < 0.001 
BMP-2 1.0 (Reference) 1.0 (0.77–1.30) P = 0.99 1.0 (0.71–1.42) P = 0.99 0.63 (0.37–1.10) P = 0.11 
Group 1Group 2Group 3Group 4
VPD < 3.5%VPD ≥ 3.5 and <7.5%VPD ≥ 7.5 and <15.5%VPD ≥ 15.5%
FGF-1 1.0 (Reference) 1.03 (0.93–1.14) P = 0.61 1.05 (0.92–1.19) P = 0.51 0.95 (0.78–1.17) P = 0.66 
FGF-12 1.0 (Reference) 1.08 (0.96–1.22) P = 0.21 1.11 (0.95–1.30) P = 0.20 1.04 (0.81–1.33) P = 0.76 
TGFβ1 1.0 (Reference) 1.05 (0.97–1.14) P = 0.22 1.03 (0.93–1.14) P = 0.61 1.33 (1.13–1.56) P < 0.001 
IGFBP-3 1.0 (Reference) 1.04 (0.90–1.20) P = 0.58 0.90 (0.75–1.08) P = 0.27 0.82 (0.61–1.09) P = 0.17 
IGF-1 1.0 (Reference) 0.78 (0.57–1.07) P = 0.13 0.83 (0.54–1.26) P = 0.38 2.93 (1.72–4.98) P < 0.001 
BMP-2 1.0 (Reference) 1.0 (0.77–1.30) P = 0.99 1.0 (0.71–1.42) P = 0.99 0.63 (0.37–1.10) P = 0.11 

Note: Multivariable model adjusted for race (non-Hispanic White, Black or African American, other), current age (continuous), BMI (continuous), menopausal hormone therapy use (no, yes, missing), parity and age at first birth (categorical). P denotes P value.

Data availability statement

The data generated in this study are not publicly available but can be made available upon request from the corresponding author.

Characteristics of study participants by VPD categories are shown in Table 1. There were differences in age at menarche, BMI, race by VPD categories. Women with VPD ≥ 15.5% attained menarche at an older age and had lower BMI than women with VPD < 3.5%. The women were similar in most of the other characteristics.

We observed significant correlations in growth factor gene expression (Table 2). The strongest positive correlations were between FGF-1 and FGF-12 (r = 0.49, P < 0.0001), and TGFβ1 and FGF-12 (r = 0.46, P < 0.0001) gene expressions. IGFBP-3 gene expression was weakly inversely correlated with FGF-1 gene expression (r = –0.17, P < 0.001) and FGF-12 gene expression (r = –0.17, P < 0.001).

In multivariable adjusted analyses using linear regression models, there was a positive association between IGF-1 gene expression and VPD (Table 3, Fig. 1). One unit increase in IGF-1 gene expression was associated with a 35% increase in VPD (1.35; 95% CI, 1.13–1.60; P = 0.001). There were suggestions that TGFβ1 was positively associated with VPD (1.04; 95% CI, 0.99–1.09; P = 0.09) while BMP-2 gene expression was inversely associated with VPD (0.87; 95% CI, 0.75–1.01; P = 0.07), but these were not statistically significant.

TGFβ1 and BMP-2 gene expression were not associated with VPD. As expected, for most of the growth factors, the associations with NDV were in the opposite direction as those observed for VPD (Fig. 1).

In multivariate adjusted analyses using multinomial logistic regression (Table 4), IGF-1 gene expression as was 193% higher (OR, 2.93; 95% CI, 1.72–4.98) in women with extremely dense breasts (VPD ≥ 15.5%) compared with women with entirely fatty breasts (VPD <3.5%). IGF-1 gene expression was not elevated among women with scattered areas of fibroglandular density (VPD, 3.5%–7.5%) and heterogeneously dense breasts (VPD, 7.5%–15.5%). TGFβ1 gene expression was 33% (OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.13–1.56; P = 0.0008) higher in women with extremely dense breasts than those with almost entirely fatty breasts. There were no associations between growth factor gene expression and DV or NDV (Supplementary Table S1).

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the associations of an array of growth factor (IGF-1, IGFBP-3, FGF-1, FGF-12, TGFβ1, and BMP-2) gene expression in plasma with volumetric measures of MBD in postmenopausal women. IGF-1 gene expression was positively associated with VPD and TGFβ1 gene expression was higher in women with extremely dense breasts compared with those with almost entirely fatty breasts. Plasma growth factor gene expression was not associated with DV and NDV.

Although there is a weak correlation between protein concentrations and mRNA levels (31–33), growth factor gene expression may provide additional biological readout because factors such as protein turnover and posttranslational modifications modulate growth factor serum levels (31–33). In addition, gene expression measures may be more stable than circulating growth factor levels (34). Growth factors could influence MBD through cellular and epithelial proliferation (35). Growth factors can also act as mitogens, inducing cell division by inhibiting factors that block cell-cycle progression and may act as survival factors by suppressing apoptosis in cells (35). Although we performed gene expression, our findings are similar to prior studies, which have shown positive associations of circulating levels with IGF-1 with MBD (36–38). Other studies have also reported associations between genetic variations in both IGF-1 and IGFPB-3 and MBD (39–41). However, ours is the first study to investigate the associations of IGF-1 and IGFBP-3 gene expression with VPD in postmenopausal women.

Premenopausal women undergo cyclical changes in hormone levels that underlie differences in epithelial proliferation in hormone-responsive organs like the breasts; hence, menopausal status could mediate the associations of growth factors with MBD. Postmenopausal women, particularly those who do not use menopausal hormone therapy, have less variation in exposure to hormones like estrogen. Estrogen signaling increases IGF-1 activity (42) and estrogen levels vary during the menstrual cycle so it is plausible that IGF-1 levels may follow the same pattern. Thus, variations in estrogen levels during the menstrual cycle may provide insight into findings showing that IGF-1 is associated with MBD in premenopausal, but not postmenopausal women (10, 43). Our study focused on the associations between growth factor gene expression and MBD in postmenopausal women.

TGFβ1 expression was higher in women with dense breasts compared with those with almost entirely fatty breasts. Prior studies in identified SNPs in TGFβ1 that are associated with MBD (23) as well as a decrease in TGFβ1 canonical signaling in women with increased MBD (22), thus, larger studies are necessary to further delineate its association with MBD. TGFβ1 has paradoxical roles in cancer, inhibiting cellular proliferation in early stages but promoting tumorigenesis in later stages of cancer (44).

Our study suggests that BMP-2 gene expression may be inversely associated with VPD. BMPs, which are members of the TGFβ superfamily, control proliferation and apoptosis by transcriptional regulation (24, 45). BMP-2 has been shown to regulate mammary gland development (46) and inhibit breast cancer cell proliferation (47). Some studies, however, suggest a paradoxical role for BMP-2 in cancer similar to that identified for TGFβ1 (24, 48). Increased fatty tissue in the breast is characteristic of low MBD (49). BMP-2 has also been characterized for its role in childhood adiposity (50) and we have shown that adiposity at age 10 is inversely associated with VPD (25). BMP-2 expression in visceral and adipose tissue is associated with obesity and SNPs in BMP-2 (rs979012) and SNP rs979012 are associated with BMI, body fat distribution, insulin biology, and total cholesterol levels (50, 51). Hence, BMP-2 requires further evaluation in MBD.

We identified correlations in the expression levels of various growth factors. IGFBP-3 gene expression was weakly inversely correlated with FGF-1 gene expression, supporting data from a previous study showing that IGFBP-3 induces downregulation of FGF transcription (52). The interplay between the growth factors may have a functional role in extracellular matrix assembly and the maintenance of extracellular matrix homeostasis (53, 54).

Our study has some limitations. The study was cross-sectional and as a result could not determine causal associations between growth factor gene expression and MBD. In addition, plasma growth factor gene expression levels and MBD change over time but we did not assay these growth factors longitudinally. Nevertheless, our study has the following strengths. We enhanced generalizability by recruiting women at their annual routine mammogram screening. We used Volpara, which has been shown to have high reliability to determine MBD (55). In addition, we assayed growth factor gene expression, rather than circulating growth factor levels, which could provide novel insights on the associations of these growth factors with MBD.

In conclusion, we identified positive associations between IGF-1 and TGFβ1 gene expression and VPD as well as findings suggestive of an inverse association of BMP-2 gene expression with VPD in postmenopausal women. Our findings require confirmation in a different study population.

No disclosures were reported.

F.A. Akinjiyan: Formal analysis, validation, investigation, visualization, writing–original draft, writing–review and editing. A. Adams: Investigation, writing–review and editing. S. Xu: Formal analysis, visualization, writing–review and editing. M. Wang: Formal analysis, visualization. A.T. Toriola: Conceptualization, resources, supervision, funding acquisition, validation, investigation, visualization, writing–review and editing.

This work was supported by funding from NIH/NCI (R21CA216515, R37CA235602 and R01CA246592) to A.T. Toriola.

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

1.
American Cancer Society
.
Breast Cancer Facts & Figs. 2019–2020
.
Atlanta
:
American Cancer Society, Inc
.
2019
.
2.
Wolfe
JN
.
Breast patterns as an index of risk for developing breast cancer
.
AJR Am J Roentgenol
1976
;
126
:
1130
7
.
3.
van Gils
CH
,
Hendriks
JH
,
Holland
R
,
Karssemeijer
N
,
Otten
JD
,
Straatman
H
, et al
.
Changes in mammographic breast density and concomitant changes in breast cancer risk
.
Eur J Cancer Prev
1999
;
8
:
509
15
.
4.
McCormack
VA
,
dos Santos Silva
I
.
Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2006
;
15
:
1159
69
.
5.
Pettersson
A
,
Graff
RE
,
Ursin
G
,
Santos Silva
ID
,
McCormack
V
,
Baglietto
L
, et al
.
Mammographic density phenotypes and risk of breast cancer: a meta-analysis
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2014
;
106
:
dju078
.
6.
Varghese
JS
,
Thompson
DJ
,
Michailidou
K
,
Lindström
S
,
Turnbull
C
,
Brown
J
, et al
.
Mammographic breast density and breast cancer: evidence of a shared genetic basis
.
Cancer Res
2012
;
72
:
1478
84
.
7.
Boyd
NF
,
Rommens
JM
,
Vogt
K
,
Lee
V
,
Hopper
JL
,
Yaffe
MJ
, et al
.
Mammographic breast density as an intermediate phenotype for breast cancer
.
Lancet Oncol
2005
;
6
:
798
808
.
8.
Rice
MS
,
Bertrand
KA
,
VanderWeele
TJ
,
Rosner
BA
,
Liao
X
,
Adami
HO
, et al
.
Mammographic density and breast cancer risk: a mediation analysis
.
Breast Cancer Res
2016
;
18
:
94
.
9.
Pollak
M
.
Insulin and insulin-like growth factor signaling in neoplasia
.
Nat Rev Cancer
2008
;
8
:
915
28
.
10.
Key
TJ
,
Appleby
PN
,
Reeves
GK
,
Roddam
AW
.
Insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF1), IGF-binding protein 3 (IGFBP3), and breast cancer risk: pooled individual data analysis of 17 prospective studies
.
Lancet Oncol
2010
;
11
:
530
42
.
11.
Diorio
C
,
Pollak
M
,
Byrne
C
,
Mâsse
B
,
Hébert-Croteau
N
,
Yaffe
M
, et al
.
Insulin-like growth factor I, IGF-binding protein 3, and mammographic breast density
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2005
;
14
:
1065
73
.
12.
Byrne
C
,
Colditz
GA
,
Willett
WC
,
Speizer
FE
,
Pollak
M
,
Hankinson
SE
.
Plasma insulin-like growth factor (IGF) I, IGF-binding protein 3, and mammographic density
.
Cancer Res
2000
;
60
:
3744
8
.
13.
Hada
M
,
Oh
H
,
Pfeiffer
RM
,
Falk
RT
,
Fan
S
,
Mullooly
M
, et al
.
Relationship of circulating insulin-like growth factor I and binding proteins 1–7 with mammographic density among women undergoing image-guided diagnostic breast biopsy
.
Breast Cancer Res
2019
;
21
:
81
.
14.
Frydenberg
H
,
Flote
VG
,
Iversen
A
,
Finstad
SE
,
Furberg
AS
,
Torjesen
PA
, et al
.
Insulin-like growth factor 1, growth hormone, and daily cycling estrogen are associated with mammographic density in premenopausal women
.
Cancer Causes Control
2014
;
25
:
891
903
.
15.
Tamimi
RM
,
Cox
DG
,
Kraft
P
,
Pollak
MN
,
Haiman
CA
,
Cheng
I
, et al
.
Common genetic variation in IGF1, IGFBP-1, and IGFBP-3 in relation to mammographic density: a cross-sectional study
.
Breast Cancer Res
2007
;
9
:
R18
.
16.
Hynes
NE
,
Watson
CJ
.
Mammary gland growth factors: roles in normal development and in cancer
.
Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol
2010
;
2
:
a003186
a
.
17.
Powers
CJ
,
McLeskey
SW
,
Wellstein
A
.
Fibroblast growth factors, their receptors, and signaling
.
Endocr Relat Cancer
2000
;
7
:
165
97
.
18.
Bonnans
C
,
Chou
J
,
Werb
Z
.
Remodeling the extracellular matrix in development and disease
.
Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol
2014
;
15
:
786
801
.
19.
Ozhand
A
,
Lee
E
,
Wu
AH
,
Ellingjord-Dale
M
,
Akslen
LA
,
McKean-Cowdin
R
, et al
.
Variation in inflammatory cytokine/growth-factor genes and mammographic density in premenopausal women aged 50–55
.
PLoS One
2013
;
8
:
e65313
.
20.
Guo
Y-P
,
Martin
LJ
,
Hanna
W
,
Banerjee
D
,
Miller
N
,
Fishell
E
, et al
.
Growth factors and stromal matrix proteins associated with mammographic densities
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2001
;
10
:
243
8
.
21.
de Larco
JE
,
Todaro
GJ
.
Growth factors from murine sarcoma virus-transformed cells
.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
1978
;
75
:
4001
5
.
22.
Yang
WT
,
Lewis
MT
,
Hess
K
,
Wong
H
,
Tsimelzon
A
,
Karadag
N
, et al
.
Decreased TGFbeta signaling and increased COX2 expression in high risk women with increased mammographic breast density
.
Breast Cancer Res Treat
2010
;
119
:
305
14
.
23.
Lee
E
,
Van Den Berg
D
,
Hsu
C
,
Ursin
G
,
Koh
WP
,
Yuan
JM
, et al
.
Genetic variation in transforming growth factor beta 1 and mammographic density in Singapore Chinese women
.
Cancer Res
2013
;
73
:
1876
82
.
24.
Alarmo
E-L
,
Kallioniemi
A
.
Bone morphogenetic proteins in breast cancer: dual role in tumorigenesis?
Endocr Relat Cancer
2010
;
17
:
R123
.
25.
Han
Y
,
Berkey
CS
,
Herman
CR
,
Appleton
CM
,
Alimujiang
A
,
Colditz
GA
, et al
.
Adiposity change over the life course and mammographic breast density in postmenopausal women
.
Cancer Prev Res
2020
;
13
:
475
82
.
26.
National comprehensive cancer network: clinical practice guidelines in oncology: breast cancer
.
In.
;
2011
.
27.
Lee
HN
,
Sohn
YM
,
Han
KH
.
Comparison of mammographic density estimation by Volpara software with radiologists’ visual assessment: analysis of clinical-radiologic factors affecting discrepancy between them
.
Acta Radiol
2015
;
56
:
1061
8
.
28.
Rao
AA
,
Feneis
J
,
Lalonde
C
,
Ojeda-Fournier
H
.
A pictorial review of changes in the BI-RADS fifth edition
.
Radiographics
2016
;
36
:
623
39
.
29.
Brandt
KR
,
Scott
CG
,
Ma
L
,
Mahmoudzadeh
AP
,
Jensen
MR
,
Whaley
DH
, et al
.
Comparison of clinical and automated breast density measurements: implications for risk prediction and supplemental screening
.
Radiology
2016
;
279
:
710
9
.
30.
Jordan
SE
,
Saad
H
,
Covarrubias
AS
,
Siemon
J
,
Pearson
JM
,
Slomovitz
BM
, et al
.
mRNA expression in low grade serous ovarian cancer: Results of a NanoString assay in a diverse population
.
Gynecol Oncol
2020
;
159
:
554
62
.
31.
Vogel
C
,
Marcotte
EM
.
Insights into the regulation of protein abundance from proteomic and transcriptomic analyses
.
Nat Rev Genet
2012
;
13
:
227
32
.
32.
Maier
T
,
Güell
M
,
Serrano
L
.
Correlation of mRNA and protein in complex biological samples
.
FEBS Lett
2009
;
583
:
3966
73
.
33.
de Sousa Abreu
R
,
Penalva
LO
,
Marcotte
EM
,
Vogel
C
.
Global signatures of protein and mRNA expression levels
.
Mol Biosyst
2009
;
5
:
1512
26
.
34.
Wu
Q
,
Medina
SG
,
Kushawah
G
,
DeVore
ML
,
Castellano
LA
,
Hand
JM
, et al
.
Translation affects mRNA stability in a codon-dependent manner in human cells
.
Elife
2019
;
8
:
e45396
.
35.
Alberts
B
,
Johnson
A
,
Lewis
J
, et al
.
Extracellular control of cell division, cell growth, and apoptosis
. In:
Molecular biology of the cell
, 4th edition.
New York, NY
:
Garland Science
;
2002
.
36.
Bremnes
Y
,
Ursin
G
,
Bjurstam
N
,
Rinaldi
S
,
Kaaks
R
,
Gram
IT
.
Insulin-like growth factor and mammographic density in postmenopausal Norwegian women
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2007
;
16
:
57
62
.
37.
Rice
MS
,
Tworoger
SS
,
Rosner
BA
,
Pollak
MN
,
Hankinson
SE
,
Tamimi
RM
.
Insulin-like growth factor 1, insulin-like growth factor–binding protein 3, growth hormone, and mammographic density in the nurses’ health studies
.
Breast Cancer Res Treat
2012
;
136
:
805
12
.
38.
Horne
HN
,
Sherman
ME
,
Pfeiffer
RM
,
Figueroa
JD
,
Khodr
ZG
,
Falk
RT
, et al
.
Circulating insulin-like growth factor I, insulin-like growth factor–binding protein 3 and terminal duct lobular unit involution of the breast: a cross-sectional study of women with benign breast disease
.
Breast Cancer Res
2016
;
18
:
24
.
39.
Verheus
M
,
McKay
JD
,
Kaaks
R
,
Canzian
F
,
Biessy
C
,
Johansson
M
, et al
.
Common genetic variation in the IGF-1 gene, serum IGF-I levels, and breast density
.
Breast Cancer Res Treat
2008
;
112
:
109
22
.
40.
Diorio
C
,
Brisson
J
,
Bérubé
S
,
Pollak
M
.
Genetic polymorphisms involved in insulin-like growth factor (IGF) pathway in relation to mammographic breast density and IGF levels
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2008
;
17
:
880
8
.
41.
Taverne
CW
,
Verheus
M
,
McKay
JD
,
Kaaks
R
,
Canzian
F
,
Grobbee
DE
, et al
.
Common genetic variation of insulin-like growth factor–binding protein 1 (IGFBP-1), IGFBP-3, and acid labile subunit in relation to serum IGF-I levels and mammographic density
.
Breast Cancer Res Treat
2010
;
123
:
843
55
.
42.
Hewitt
SC
,
Winuthayanon
W
,
Lierz
SL
,
Hamilton
KJ
,
Donoghue
LJ
,
Ramsey
JT
, et al
.
Role of ERα in mediating female uterine transcriptional responses to IGF1
.
Endocrinology
2017
;
158
:
2427
35
.
43.
Boyd
NF
,
Stone
J
,
Martin
LJ
,
Jong
R
,
Fishell
E
,
Yaffe
M
, et al
.
The association of breast mitogens with mammographic densities
.
Br J Cancer
2002
;
87
:
876
82
.
44.
Tian
M
,
Schiemann
WP
.
The TGF-beta paradox in human cancer: an update
.
Future Oncol
2009
;
5
:
259
71
.
45.
Chang
H
,
Brown
CW
,
Matzuk
MM
.
Genetic analysis of the mammalian transforming growth factor beta superfamily
.
Endocr Rev
2002
;
23
:
787
823
.
46.
Phippard
DJ
,
Weber-Hall
SJ
,
Sharpe
PT
,
Naylor
MS
,
Jayatalake
H
,
Maas
R
, et al
.
Regulation of Msx-1, Msx-2, Bmp-2, and Bmp-4 during fetal and postnatal mammary gland development
.
Development
1996
;
122
:
2729
37
.
47.
Pouliot
F
,
Labrie
C
.
Role of Smad1 and Smad4 proteins in the induction of p21WAF1,Cip1 during bone morphogenetic protein-induced growth arrest in human breast cancer cells
.
J Endocrinol
2002
;
172
:
187
98
.
48.
Steinert
S
,
Kroll
TC
,
Taubert
I
,
Pusch
L
,
Hortschansky
P
,
Höffken
K
, et al
.
Differential expression of cancer-related genes by single and permanent exposure to bone morphogenetic protein 2
.
J Cancer Res Clin Oncol
2008
;
134
:
1237
45
.
49.
Nazari
SS
,
Mukherjee
P
.
An overview of mammographic density and its association with breast cancer
.
Breast Cancer
2018
;
25
:
259
67
.
50.
Guiu-Jurado
E
,
Unthan
M
,
Böhler
N
,
Kern
M
,
Landgraf
K
,
Dietrich
A
, et al
.
Bone morphogenetic protein 2 (BMP2) may contribute to partition of energy storage into visceral and subcutaneous fat depots
.
Obesity
2016
;
24
:
2092
100
.
51.
Shungin
D
,
Winkler
TW
,
Croteau-Chonka
DC
,
Ferreira
T
,
Locke
AE
,
Mägi
R
, et al
.
New genetic loci link adipose and insulin biology to body fat distribution
.
Nature
2015
;
518
:
187
96
.
52.
Kim
JH
,
Choi
DS
,
Lee
OH
,
Oh
SH
,
Lippman
SM
,
Lee
HY
.
Antiangiogenic antitumor activities of IGFBP-3 are mediated by IGF-independent suppression of Erk1/2 activation and Egr-1–mediated transcriptional events
.
Blood
2011
;
118
:
2622
31
.
53.
Vogelmann
R
,
Ruf
D
,
Wagner
M
,
Adler
G
,
Menke
A
.
Effects of fibrogenic mediators on the development of pancreatic fibrosis in a TGF-beta1 transgenic mouse model
.
Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol
2001
;
280
:
G164
72
.
54.
Kuhn
LT
,
Ou
G
,
Charles
L
,
Hurley
MM
,
Rodner
CM
,
Gronowicz
G
.
Fibroblast growth factor 2 and bone morphogenetic protein 2 have a synergistic stimulatory effect on bone formation in cell cultures from elderly mouse and human bone
.
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci
2013
;
68
:
1170
80
.
55.
Alimujiang
A
,
Imm
KR
,
Appleton
CM
,
Colditz
GA
,
Berkey
CS
,
Toriola
AT
.
Adiposity at age 10 and mammographic density among premenopausal women
.
Cancer Prev Res
2018
;
11
:
287
9
.

Supplementary data