Background:

The V measure captures grayscale intensity variation on a mammogram and is positively associated with breast cancer risk, independent of percent mammographic density (PMD), an established marker of breast cancer risk. We examined whether anthropometrics are associated with V, independent of PMD.

Methods:

The analysis included 1,700 premenopausal and 1,947 postmenopausal women without breast cancer within the Nurses' Health Study (NHS) and NHSII. Participants recalled their body fatness at ages 5, 10, and 20 years using a 9-level pictogram (level 1: most lean) and reported weight at age 18 years, current adult weight, and adult height. V was estimated by calculating standard deviation of pixels on screening mammograms. Linear mixed models were used to estimate beta coefficients (ß) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the relationships between anthropometric measures and V, adjusting for confounders and PMD.

Results:

V and PMD were positively correlated (Spearman r = 0.60). Higher average body fatness at ages 5 to 10 years (level ≥ 4.5 vs. 1) was significantly associated with lower V in premenopausal (ß = −0.32; 95% CI, −0.48 to −0.16) and postmenopausal (ß = −0.24; 95% CI, −0.37 to −0.10) women, independent of current body mass index (BMI) and PMD. Similar inverse associations were observed with average body fatness at ages 10 to 20 years and BMI at age 18 years. Current BMI was inversely associated with V, but the associations were largely attenuated after adjustment for PMD. Height was not associated with V.

Conclusions:

Our data suggest that early-life body fatness may reflect lifelong impact on breast tissue architecture beyond breast density. However, further studies are needed to confirm the results.

Impact:

This study highlights strong inverse associations of early-life adiposity with mammographic image intensity variation.

Anthropometrics such as height (1–3) and body fatness (3–11) are associated with breast cancer risk. Height is thought to indicate early-life nutritional status (12) and correlates with timing of puberty and early-life exposure to endogenous growth hormones. A meta-analysis of 159 prospective cohorts estimated a 17% elevated breast cancer risk associated with every 10-cm increase in adult height (2). Higher childhood and adolescent body fatness and young adult body mass index (BMI) are consistently inversely associated with both pre- and postmenopausal breast cancer risk (4–8, 13), whereas later adult body fatness is positively associated with postmenopausal breast cancer risk (3, 9–11). Although the mechanisms underlying the relationships between anthropometrics and breast cancer risk are unknown, one of the hypothesized mechanisms is that exposure, particularly during childhood and adolescence, may influence development of breast tissue structures and determine breast density. Percent mammographic density (PMD) is a strong breast cancer risk factor, which has been associated with 4- to 6-fold higher risk of breast cancer (14–16).

Multiple studies of PMD, which refers to the relative amount of dense (fibroglandular) versus nondense (adipose) tissue in the breast, have reported associations with early-life and adult anthropometrics (17–22). However, other features within a mammogram may provide additional information beyond PMD. Recently, novel algorithms have been developed to measure the heterogeneity in patterns of mammographic density, the features referred to as “texture.” Independent studies from the United States (23, 24) and the UK (25) have shown that various measures of texture features, ranging from simple distribution of grayscale intensity values to the spatial relationships between intensities on a mammogram, are associated with breast cancer risk, independent of PMD. In the Nurses' Health Study (NHS) and NHSII, we quantified the V metric, a measure of texture that captures variation in grayscale intensity values on a mammogram, using automated techniques. Using these data, we previously found that higher V, indicating greater intensity variation, was associated with a 41% increased breast cancer risk in premenopausal women and a 21% increased risk in postmenopausal women, after adjustment for PMD (24). These studies have provided evidence that, even among women with similar PMD, texture features such as V can further differentiate and predict women who are at increased risk of developing breast cancer later in life.

However, little is known about the factors associated with the V. Investigating the associations of established breast cancer risk factors with V may provide new insights into the mechanisms through which these risk factors influence breast cancer risk. Using automated techniques, we examined the associations of early-life and adult anthropometrics (childhood and adolescent body fatness, BMI at age 18, current adult BMI, change in BMI since age 18, predicted body fat mass, predicted percent body fat, and adult height) with V among pre- and postmenopausal women in the NHS and the NHSII.

Study population

The NHS began in 1976 among 121,700 female registered nurses at ages 30 to 55 years. The NHSII began in 1989 among 116,429 female registered nurses at ages 25 to 42 years. In both cohorts, baseline and subsequent biennial follow-up questionnaires were used to collect information on participants' health behaviors, anthropometric and lifestyle factors, reproductive factors, medical histories, and disease diagnosis (26).

This analysis includes participants who served as controls in a nested case–control study of breast cancer within the NHS and NHSII blood and cheek cell collection subcohorts. Details of this nested case–control study have been previously described (27–29). In brief, blood samples were collected from 32,826 NHS participants ages 43 to 70 years in 1989 to 1990 and 29,611 NHSII participants ages 32 to 45 years in 1996 to 1999. Up to two controls were matched to incident breast cancer cases on age, menopausal status at blood draw and diagnosis, current postmenopausal hormone therapy use, month, time of day, fasting status at time of blood collection, and luteal day (NHSII timed samples only). From the cases and controls, mammograms imaged as close as possible to the date of blood draw (or 1997 for cheek cell collection subcohort) were collected (NHS: 1,379 cases and 2,514 controls; NHSII: 758 cases and 1,832 controls).

For this analysis, we restricted to controls and excluded women with missing information on V or PMD (n = 338), anthropometrics (childhood and adolescent body fatness, BMI at age 18 years, current adult BMI, adult height; n = 291), and menopausal status (n = 70). A total of 3,647 women (1,700 premenopausal and 1,947 postmenopausal) were included in this analysis. The study protocol was approved by the institutional review boards of the Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and those of participating registries as required.

Exposure assessment

Body fatness at ages 5, 10, and 20 years were recalled in 1988 (NHS) and 1989 (NHSII) using Stunkard's nine-level pictogram (levels 1 to 9: most lean to most overweight; ref. 30). Recalled body fatness using this pictogram by women at ages 71 to 76 years has shown a good correlation with measured BMI at ages 5 to 20 (Pearson r = 0.60 to 0.66; ref. 31). Average body fatness at ages 5 and 10 years and ages 10 and 20 years were used to represent childhood and adolescent body fatness, respectively. Extreme levels (≥4.5) were collapsed into a single category because there were fewer women in those levels. Height and weight at age 18 were reported via the baseline questionnaire (in 1976 for NHS and 1989 for NHSII). Current weight was reported via questionnaires administered prior to but around the time of mammogram. BMI (kg/m2) was calculated by dividing weight (kg) by baseline height (m) squared. Change in BMI since age 18 (kg/m2) was estimated by subtracting BMI at age 18 from current adult BMI. To account for limitations of BMI as a measure of adiposity, we also calculated predicted body fat mass (kg) and percent fat mass on the basis of age, race, height, weight, and waist circumference using the equations developed and validated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (32). The analyses of predicted body fat mass and percent fat mass were restricted to 1,078 premenopausal and 1,464 postmenopausal women with information on waist circumference. All continuous exposure variables (BMI at age 18, current adult BMI, change in BMI since age 18, predicted body fat mass, predicted percent body fat, and adult height) were categorized based on quintiles.

Mammographic density measurement

Details of mammographic density measurement were described elsewhere (33). Briefly, a Lumysis 85 laser film scanner was used to digitize the craniocaudal views of both breasts for all mammograms in the NHS and for the first two batches of mammograms in the NHSII. The third batch of mammograms in the NHSII was scanned using a VIDAR CAD PRO Advantage scanner (VIDAR Systems Corporation) using comparable resolution of 150 dots per inch and 12 bit depth. We measured absolute dense area and total area using the Cumulus software for computer-assisted thresholding (34). PMD was estimated by dividing the dense area by the total area and then averaged that of both breasts. All images were read by a single observer (within person intraclass correlation >0.90). We adjusted for batch variability in the NHSII as previously described (33).

Mammographic texture variation measurement (“the V metric”)

The V metric is an automated measure that captures mammographic image intensity, as described previously (35, 36). Briefly, the breast area is detected and eroded [by 25% (“V75”) and 35% (“V65”) along a radial direction] to eliminate the proportion of the breast that was not in contact with the compression paddle during the image acquisition, which is an approximation. The standard deviation calculated from pixels within the eroded breast region produces V. Images were digitized with different equipment and were from various time frames. To account for resolution and intensity scale differences, mammograms were normalized before V was calculated (24). Normalization processing involved spatial normalization, feature distribution normalization, and resolution estimation (Supplementary Methods and Materials). Example images of breasts with high versus low V values given similar PMD are shown in Fig. 1.

Figure 1.

Example mammographic images of breasts with low V and high V values, given the same PMD. The figure contains mammographic images of breasts with (A) low V (V = −1.5, PMD = 44%) and (B) high V (V = 1.7, PMD = 44%). Although the two images have the same PMD, the images differ in grayscale intensity values on a mammogram. V metric was estimated by calculating standard deviation of pixels on screening mammograms. We note that V metric can take negative values because of the mapping.

Figure 1.

Example mammographic images of breasts with low V and high V values, given the same PMD. The figure contains mammographic images of breasts with (A) low V (V = −1.5, PMD = 44%) and (B) high V (V = 1.7, PMD = 44%). Although the two images have the same PMD, the images differ in grayscale intensity values on a mammogram. V metric was estimated by calculating standard deviation of pixels on screening mammograms. We note that V metric can take negative values because of the mapping.

Close modal

Statistical analysis

Because mammographic density and texture measures varied by menopausal status, all analyses were stratified by menopausal status at time of mammogram. To account for correlations among the controls within the matched sets, we performed linear mixed models with a compound symmetry correlation structure to estimate beta coefficients (ß) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the relationships between anthropometrics and V. Multivariable (MV) models included age, race, personal history of benign breast disease, family history of breast cancer, parity/age at first birth, alcohol use, smoking, and breastfeeding. In postmenopausal women, age at menopause and postmenopausal hormone use were additionally adjusted. For change in BMI since age 18, models additionally adjusted for BMI at age 18. For all analyses, we used covariate information reported via questionnaires assessed prior to but around the time of mammogram. We performed tests for trend using the median of the exposure categories as a continuous variable in the regression models. To evaluate whether the associations between anthropometrics and V are driven by their correlations with other mammographic measures, we compared the models after additional adjustment for PMD, dense area, and nondense area, separately. For early-life anthropometrics, we also evaluated the role of potential mediators by comparing the models with and without adjustment for BMI at age 18 and current adult BMI. Additional adjustment for age at menarche did not change the results and thus are not shown in this paper. To assess whether the associations vary by the levels of PMD, we stratified analyses by low versus high PMD (below vs. above the menopausal-specific median PMD) and performed tests for interaction using a Wald test for interaction terms. We also examined the relationships with PMD, absolute dense area, and absolute nondense area by performing models on square-root transformed density measures, adjusting for V. In primary analyses, we used the data from V75 breast erosion strategy and low resolution images. In sensitivity analyses, we repeated the analyses using an alternate breast erosion strategy (V65) and after restricting to data from high-resolution images (n = 1,242 premenopausal, 850 postmenopausal). We also stratified by digitization methods to account for measurement differences in V by these methods.

Participant characteristics

The mean age at mammogram was 45.9 years in 1,700 premenopausal women and 58.0 years in 1,947 postmenopausal women. Most women were white (97%) and parous (89%). On average, women with greater average body fatness at ages 5 to 10 years (level ≥4.5 vs. 1) were less likely to be non-white (1.4% vs. 4.9%) and have personal history of benign breast disease (14% vs. 22%) and more likely to have higher BMI at age 18 (23.8 vs. 19.6 kg/m2), higher current adult BMI (28.7 vs. 24.2 kg/m2), and younger age at menarche (11.9 vs. 12.8 years; Table 1). Women with greater average body fatness at ages 5 to 10 years were also more likely to have lower PMD and absolute dense area and higher absolute nondense area.

Table 1.

Age and age-standardized characteristics of 3,647 study participants in the NHS and the NHSII, according to self-reported average body fatness at ages 5 to 10 years.

Childhood body fatness (average at ages 5–10 years)
Level 1Level 1.5–2Level 2.5–3Level 3.5–4Level ≥4.5
(N = 835)(N = 1,063)(N = 851)(N = 565)(N = 333)
 Mean (SD) or percentage 
Age at mammograma, years 55.0 (9.1) 51.8 (8.9) 51.1 (8.6) 51.7 (8.4) 51.9 (8.4) 
Nonwhite, % 4.9 3.2 4.4 2.4 1.4 
Height, inches 64.7 (2.4) 64.8 (2.4) 64.8 (2.5) 64.7 (2.4) 64.7 (2.5) 
BMI at age 18 years, kg/m2 19.6 (2.0) 20.4 (2.2) 21.5 (2.6) 22.8 (3.0) 23.8 (3.2) 
BMI at mammogramb, kg/m2 24.2 (4.1) 25.0 (4.7) 26.3 (5.3) 27.9 (6.2) 28.7 (6.3) 
Predicted body fat mass at mammogramb, kg 24.3 (7.0) 25.7 (7.9) 27.4 (9.0) 30.4 (10.4) 31.1 (9.7) 
Predicted percent body fat mass at mammogramb 36.8 (3.9) 37.5 (4.3) 38.3 (4.7) 40.0 (5.6) 40.4 (5.2) 
Age at menarche, years 12.8 (1.4) 12.5 (1.4) 12.4 (1.4) 12.2 (1.4) 11.9 (1.3) 
Parousb, % 88.5 88.8 90.5 88.1 85.9 
Among parous womenb 
 Parityb,c 2.8 (1.3) 2.8 (1.3) 2.7 (1.3) 2.8 (1.3) 2.8 (1.3) 
 Age at first birthb,c, years 25.5 (3.6) 25.5 (3.9) 25.7 (4.0) 25.4 (3.8) 25.5 (4.0) 
 Total breastfeedingb,c, % 
  <1 month 35.7 32.3 31.5 32.8 28.3 
  1–6 months 22.0 18.7 20.0 17.8 22.0 
  7–12 months 14.3 13.4 12.6 13.9 18.6 
  ≥13 months 28.0 35.6 35.8 35.5 31.0 
Postmenopausalb, % 53.2 54.7 52.5 53.6 53.8 
Among postmenopausal womenb 
 Postmenopausal hormone useb,d 
  Never users 33.7 31.4 38.8 34.9 41.3 
  Former users 19.8 18.8 18.1 19.9 19.8 
  Current users 46.5 49.8 43.0 45.2 38.9 
 Age at menopauseb,d, years 45.2 (6.6) 44.9 (7.5) 46.1 (6.8) 45.2 (7.2) 45.4 (7.4) 
Alcohol intakeb, g/d 
 0 32.2 33.0 35.8 35.4 35.4 
 0.1–4.9 33.0 34.7 32.4 30.2 34.6 
 5.0–14.9 19.2 19.7 19.8 20.8 16.3 
 ≥15.0 8.4 7.0 6.6 7.7 8.3 
 Missing 7.3 5.6 5.5 5.9 5.3 
Smokingb, % 
 Never 56.9 60.8 57.5 56.1 51.1 
 Former 33.5 31.6 34.1 35.5 37.3 
 Current 9.6 7.5 8.4 8.4 11.6 
Personal history of benign breast diseaseb, % 21.9 21.2 19.1 19.4 14.0 
Family history of breast cancerb, % 11.0 11.1 9.4 11.3 7.4 
Percent mammographic densityb 35.9 (19.4) 35.8 (19.2) 31.0 (19.6) 27.8 (19.1) 23.6 (18.7) 
Absolute dense areab, cm2 43.3 (26.8) 43.7 (27.9) 40.1 (27.6) 38.8 (28.5) 32.9 (26.6) 
Absolute nondense areab, cm2 91.5 (61.8) 93.8 (64.9) 111.8 (78.8) 124.8 (77.8) 135.7 (78.4) 
V measures 0.12 (0.91) 0.09 (0.95) −0.12 (0.98) −0.27 (1.00) −0.58 (0.90) 
Childhood body fatness (average at ages 5–10 years)
Level 1Level 1.5–2Level 2.5–3Level 3.5–4Level ≥4.5
(N = 835)(N = 1,063)(N = 851)(N = 565)(N = 333)
 Mean (SD) or percentage 
Age at mammograma, years 55.0 (9.1) 51.8 (8.9) 51.1 (8.6) 51.7 (8.4) 51.9 (8.4) 
Nonwhite, % 4.9 3.2 4.4 2.4 1.4 
Height, inches 64.7 (2.4) 64.8 (2.4) 64.8 (2.5) 64.7 (2.4) 64.7 (2.5) 
BMI at age 18 years, kg/m2 19.6 (2.0) 20.4 (2.2) 21.5 (2.6) 22.8 (3.0) 23.8 (3.2) 
BMI at mammogramb, kg/m2 24.2 (4.1) 25.0 (4.7) 26.3 (5.3) 27.9 (6.2) 28.7 (6.3) 
Predicted body fat mass at mammogramb, kg 24.3 (7.0) 25.7 (7.9) 27.4 (9.0) 30.4 (10.4) 31.1 (9.7) 
Predicted percent body fat mass at mammogramb 36.8 (3.9) 37.5 (4.3) 38.3 (4.7) 40.0 (5.6) 40.4 (5.2) 
Age at menarche, years 12.8 (1.4) 12.5 (1.4) 12.4 (1.4) 12.2 (1.4) 11.9 (1.3) 
Parousb, % 88.5 88.8 90.5 88.1 85.9 
Among parous womenb 
 Parityb,c 2.8 (1.3) 2.8 (1.3) 2.7 (1.3) 2.8 (1.3) 2.8 (1.3) 
 Age at first birthb,c, years 25.5 (3.6) 25.5 (3.9) 25.7 (4.0) 25.4 (3.8) 25.5 (4.0) 
 Total breastfeedingb,c, % 
  <1 month 35.7 32.3 31.5 32.8 28.3 
  1–6 months 22.0 18.7 20.0 17.8 22.0 
  7–12 months 14.3 13.4 12.6 13.9 18.6 
  ≥13 months 28.0 35.6 35.8 35.5 31.0 
Postmenopausalb, % 53.2 54.7 52.5 53.6 53.8 
Among postmenopausal womenb 
 Postmenopausal hormone useb,d 
  Never users 33.7 31.4 38.8 34.9 41.3 
  Former users 19.8 18.8 18.1 19.9 19.8 
  Current users 46.5 49.8 43.0 45.2 38.9 
 Age at menopauseb,d, years 45.2 (6.6) 44.9 (7.5) 46.1 (6.8) 45.2 (7.2) 45.4 (7.4) 
Alcohol intakeb, g/d 
 0 32.2 33.0 35.8 35.4 35.4 
 0.1–4.9 33.0 34.7 32.4 30.2 34.6 
 5.0–14.9 19.2 19.7 19.8 20.8 16.3 
 ≥15.0 8.4 7.0 6.6 7.7 8.3 
 Missing 7.3 5.6 5.5 5.9 5.3 
Smokingb, % 
 Never 56.9 60.8 57.5 56.1 51.1 
 Former 33.5 31.6 34.1 35.5 37.3 
 Current 9.6 7.5 8.4 8.4 11.6 
Personal history of benign breast diseaseb, % 21.9 21.2 19.1 19.4 14.0 
Family history of breast cancerb, % 11.0 11.1 9.4 11.3 7.4 
Percent mammographic densityb 35.9 (19.4) 35.8 (19.2) 31.0 (19.6) 27.8 (19.1) 23.6 (18.7) 
Absolute dense areab, cm2 43.3 (26.8) 43.7 (27.9) 40.1 (27.6) 38.8 (28.5) 32.9 (26.6) 
Absolute nondense areab, cm2 91.5 (61.8) 93.8 (64.9) 111.8 (78.8) 124.8 (77.8) 135.7 (78.4) 
V measures 0.12 (0.91) 0.09 (0.95) −0.12 (0.98) −0.27 (1.00) −0.58 (0.90) 

Note: Values are means (SD) or percentages, standardized to the age distribution of the study population, except for age. Values of polytomous variables may not sum to 100% due to rounding. V measures = V75 erosion, low resolution; V measures can take negative values because of the mapping.

aValue is not age adjusted.

bAt the time of mammogram.

cAmong parous women only.

dAmong postmenopausal women only.

Compared with postmenopausal women, premenopausal women had higher V (mean = 0.15 vs. −0.26), PMD (mean = 39.5% vs. 26.0%), and absolute dense area (mean = 45.7 vs. 37.4 cm2) and lower absolute nondense area (mean = 80.6 vs. 128.3 cm2). Among both pre- and postmenopausal women, V was positively correlated with PMD (Spearman r = 0.49 in premenopausal, 0.63 in postmenopausal) and absolute dense area (Spearman r = 0.39 in premenopausal, 0.48 in postmenopausal) but negatively correlated with absolute nondense area (Spearman r = −0.38 in premenopausal, −0.53 in postmenopausal) within a mammogram.

Early-life body fatness

Greater childhood body fatness (level ≥4.5 vs. 1) was statistically significantly associated with lower V in multivariable models among both premenopausal (β = −0.74; 95% CI, −0.92 to −0.57, P trend < 0.01) and postmenopausal women (β = −0.59; 95% CI, −0.75 to −0.43, P trend < 0.01; Table 2). After additional adjustment for current BMI and PMD, the associations were substantially attenuated but remained statistically significant (premenopausal: β = −0.32; 95% CI, −0.48 to −0.16; postmenopausal: β = −0.24; 95% CI, −0.37 to −0.10; P trends < 0.01). Similar inverse associations were observed for adolescent body fatness (level ≥4.5 vs. 1: β = −0.41; 95% CI, −0.64 to −0.18 in premenopausal; β = −0.34; 95% CI, −0.50 to −0.18 in postmenopausal) and BMI at age 18 years (≥23 vs. <19 kg/m2: β = −0.30; 95% CI, −0.45 to −0.16 in premenopausal; β = −0.25; 95% CI, −0.37 to −0.14 in postmenopausal) in multivariable models including current BMI and PMD (all P trend < 0.01). The associations between early-life body fatness and V were only slightly attenuated when absolute dense or nondense area was included in the models instead of PMD (all P trend < 0.01).

Table 2.

Associations of early-life body fatness (childhood body fatness, adolescent body fatness, BMI at age 18 years) with V metric in the NHS and the NHSII, stratified by menopausal status at mammogram.

Beta coefficients (95% CIs)
Premenopausal women (N = 1,700)Postmenopausal women (N = 1,947)
NMV-adjustedaMV + current BMIbMV + current BMI + PMDcNMV-adjustedaMV + current BMIbMV + current BMI + PMDc
Childhood body fatness (average at ages 5–10 years) 
 Level 1 303 0 (Ref) 0 (Ref) 0 (Ref) 532 0 (Ref) 0 (Ref) 0 (Ref) 
 Level 1.5–2 507 −0.09 (−0.22, 0.04) −0.03 (−0.16, 0.10) −0.04 (−0.16, 0.07) 556 0.03 (−0.08, 0.14) 0.05 (−0.06, 0.15) 0.004 (−0.09, 0.10) 
 Level 2.5–3 454 −0.20 (−0.33, −0.06) −0.07 (−0.20, 0.06) −0.04 (−0.16, 0.08) 397 −0.25 (−0.37, −0.13) −0.17 (−0.28, −0.05) −0.11 (−0.21, −0.01) 
 Level 3.5–4 275 −0.45 (−0.60, −0.30) −0.23 (−0.38, −0.08) −0.12 (−0.26, 0.01) 290 −0.31 (−0.45, −0.18) −0.17 (−0.30, −0.04) −0.11 (−0.22, 0.001) 
 Level ≥4.5 161 −0.74 (−0.92, −0.57) −0.46 (−0.63, −0.28) −0.32 (−0.48, −0.16) 172 −0.59 (−0.75, −0.43) −0.43 (−0.58, −0.27) −0.24 (−0.37, −0.10) 
P trend  <0.01 <0.01 <0.01  <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 
Adolescent body fatness (average at ages 10–20 years) 
 Level 1 72 0 (Ref) 0 (Ref) 0 (Ref) 173 0 (Ref) 0 (Ref) 0 (Ref) 
 Level 1.5–2 427 −0.06 (−0.29, 0.17) −0.03 (−0.25, 0.19) −0.05 (−0.25, 0.15) 585 −0.09 (−0.25, 0.07) −0.06 (−0.21, 0.09) −0.10 (−0.23, 0.03) 
 Level 2.5–3 608 −0.20 (−0.42, 0.02) −0.09 (−0.30, 0.13) −0.07 (−0.27, 0.13) 614 −0.20 (−0.35, −0.04) −0.11 (−0.26, 0.04) −0.12 (−0.25, 0.01) 
 Level 3.5–4 405 −0.49 (−0.72, −0.27) −0.28 (−0.51, −0.06) −0.19 (−0.39, 0.02) 358 −0.43 (−0.59, −0.26) −0.29 (−0.46, −0.13) −0.25 (−0.39, −0.11) 
 Level ≥4.5 188 −0.95 (−1.20, −0.70) −0.58 (−0.83, −0.33) −0.41 (−0.64, −0.18) 217 −0.79 (−0.97, −0.60) −0.53 (−0.71, −0.35) −0.34 (−0.50, −0.18) 
P trend  <0.01 <0.01 <0.01  <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 
BMI at age 18 years, kg/m2 
 <19.0 342 0 (Ref) 0 (Ref) 0 (Ref) 382 0 (Ref) 0 (Ref) 0 (Ref) 
 19.0–19.9 308 −0.15 (−0.29, −0.01) −0.10 (−0.23, 0.04) −0.09 (−0.21, 0.04) 313 −0.12 (−0.25, 0.02) −0.08 (−0.21, 0.06) −0.13 (−0.25, −0.02) 
 20.0–20.9 315 −0.14 (−0.28, −0.002) −0.03 (−0.16, 0.11) 0.004 (−0.12, 0.13) 368 −0.17 (−0.30, −0.03) −0.08 (−0.21, 0.04) −0.10 (−0.21, 0.01) 
 21.0–22.9 411 −0.36 (−0.49, −0.24) −0.19 (−0.32, −0.06) −0.12 (−0.24, 0.003) 478 −0.31 (−0.43, −0.19) −0.15 (−0.27, −0.03) −0.14 (−0.25, −0.03) 
 ≥23.0 324 −0.84 (−0.98, −0.70) −0.47 (−0.63, −0.32) −0.30 (−0.45, −0.16) 406 −0.70 (−0.82, −0.57) −0.42 (−0.56, −0.29) −0.25 (−0.37, −0.14) 
P trend  <0.01 <0.01 <0.01  <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 
Per 1-kg/m2 increase −0.13 (−0.14, −0.11) −0.07 (−0.09, −0.05) −0.04 (−0.06, −0.02)  −0.10 (−0.12, −0.09) −0.06 (−0.08, −0.04) −0.03 (−0.05, −0.02) 
Beta coefficients (95% CIs)
Premenopausal women (N = 1,700)Postmenopausal women (N = 1,947)
NMV-adjustedaMV + current BMIbMV + current BMI + PMDcNMV-adjustedaMV + current BMIbMV + current BMI + PMDc
Childhood body fatness (average at ages 5–10 years) 
 Level 1 303 0 (Ref) 0 (Ref) 0 (Ref) 532 0 (Ref) 0 (Ref) 0 (Ref) 
 Level 1.5–2 507 −0.09 (−0.22, 0.04) −0.03 (−0.16, 0.10) −0.04 (−0.16, 0.07) 556 0.03 (−0.08, 0.14) 0.05 (−0.06, 0.15) 0.004 (−0.09, 0.10) 
 Level 2.5–3 454 −0.20 (−0.33, −0.06) −0.07 (−0.20, 0.06) −0.04 (−0.16, 0.08) 397 −0.25 (−0.37, −0.13) −0.17 (−0.28, −0.05) −0.11 (−0.21, −0.01) 
 Level 3.5–4 275 −0.45 (−0.60, −0.30) −0.23 (−0.38, −0.08) −0.12 (−0.26, 0.01) 290 −0.31 (−0.45, −0.18) −0.17 (−0.30, −0.04) −0.11 (−0.22, 0.001) 
 Level ≥4.5 161 −0.74 (−0.92, −0.57) −0.46 (−0.63, −0.28) −0.32 (−0.48, −0.16) 172 −0.59 (−0.75, −0.43) −0.43 (−0.58, −0.27) −0.24 (−0.37, −0.10) 
P trend  <0.01 <0.01 <0.01  <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 
Adolescent body fatness (average at ages 10–20 years) 
 Level 1 72 0 (Ref) 0 (Ref) 0 (Ref) 173 0 (Ref) 0 (Ref) 0 (Ref) 
 Level 1.5–2 427 −0.06 (−0.29, 0.17) −0.03 (−0.25, 0.19) −0.05 (−0.25, 0.15) 585 −0.09 (−0.25, 0.07) −0.06 (−0.21, 0.09) −0.10 (−0.23, 0.03) 
 Level 2.5–3 608 −0.20 (−0.42, 0.02) −0.09 (−0.30, 0.13) −0.07 (−0.27, 0.13) 614 −0.20 (−0.35, −0.04) −0.11 (−0.26, 0.04) −0.12 (−0.25, 0.01) 
 Level 3.5–4 405 −0.49 (−0.72, −0.27) −0.28 (−0.51, −0.06) −0.19 (−0.39, 0.02) 358 −0.43 (−0.59, −0.26) −0.29 (−0.46, −0.13) −0.25 (−0.39, −0.11) 
 Level ≥4.5 188 −0.95 (−1.20, −0.70) −0.58 (−0.83, −0.33) −0.41 (−0.64, −0.18) 217 −0.79 (−0.97, −0.60) −0.53 (−0.71, −0.35) −0.34 (−0.50, −0.18) 
P trend  <0.01 <0.01 <0.01  <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 
BMI at age 18 years, kg/m2 
 <19.0 342 0 (Ref) 0 (Ref) 0 (Ref) 382 0 (Ref) 0 (Ref) 0 (Ref) 
 19.0–19.9 308 −0.15 (−0.29, −0.01) −0.10 (−0.23, 0.04) −0.09 (−0.21, 0.04) 313 −0.12 (−0.25, 0.02) −0.08 (−0.21, 0.06) −0.13 (−0.25, −0.02) 
 20.0–20.9 315 −0.14 (−0.28, −0.002) −0.03 (−0.16, 0.11) 0.004 (−0.12, 0.13) 368 −0.17 (−0.30, −0.03) −0.08 (−0.21, 0.04) −0.10 (−0.21, 0.01) 
 21.0–22.9 411 −0.36 (−0.49, −0.24) −0.19 (−0.32, −0.06) −0.12 (−0.24, 0.003) 478 −0.31 (−0.43, −0.19) −0.15 (−0.27, −0.03) −0.14 (−0.25, −0.03) 
 ≥23.0 324 −0.84 (−0.98, −0.70) −0.47 (−0.63, −0.32) −0.30 (−0.45, −0.16) 406 −0.70 (−0.82, −0.57) −0.42 (−0.56, −0.29) −0.25 (−0.37, −0.14) 
P trend  <0.01 <0.01 <0.01  <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 
Per 1-kg/m2 increase −0.13 (−0.14, −0.11) −0.07 (−0.09, −0.05) −0.04 (−0.06, −0.02)  −0.10 (−0.12, −0.09) −0.06 (−0.08, −0.04) −0.03 (−0.05, −0.02) 

Note: V metric = V75 erosion, low resolution.

aMV-adjusted model includes age (years, continuous), race (white/nonwhite), personal history of benign breast disease (yes/no), family history of breast cancer (yes/no), parity/age at first birth (nulliparous, 1–2 births/<25 years, 1–2 births/25–29 years, 1–2 births/≥30 years, ≥3 births/<25 years, ≥3 births/≥25 years, parous/missing age at first birth), alcohol use (0, 0.1–4.9, 5.0–14.9, ≥15 g/d, missing), smoking (never, former, current), breastfeeding (<1, 1–6, 7–12, ≥13 months), and, in postmenopausal women, age at menopause (≤44, 45–49, 50–54, ≥55 years, missing) and postmenopausal hormone use (never, former, current).

bAdditionally includes current BMI (kg/m2, continuous) in the MV-adjusted model.

cAdditionally includes current BMI (kg/m2, continuous) and percent mammographic density (square-root transformed, continuous) in the MV-adjusted model.

Current adult body fatness

In pre- and postmenopausal women, current adult BMI (≥30 vs. <21 kg/m2) was significantly inversely associated with V, adjusting for childhood body fatness and potential confounders (premenopausal: β = −0.74; 95% CI, −0.89 to −0.59; postmenopausal: β = −0.74; 95% CI, −0.88 to −0.59; all P-trend < 0.01) (Table 3). The associations were substantially attenuated after additional adjustment for PMD (premenopausal: β = −0.12; 95% CI, −0.27 to 0.03; postmenopausal: β = −0.08; 95% CI, −0.22 to 0.05); however, the inverse trend remained statistically significant. Similar patterns were observed when adjusted for absolute nondense area instead of PMD. Adjustment for absolute dense area only slightly attenuated the associations. Similar results were observed with change in BMI since age 18 (>7 vs. ≤0 kg/m2: β = −0.03; 95% CI, −0.18 to 0.12 in premenopausal; β = −0.04; 95% CI, −0.17 to 0.09 in postmenopausal), predicted body fat mass (≥35 vs. <20 kg: β = −0.05; 95% CI, −0.23 to 0.13 in premenopausal; β = −0.12; 95% CI, −0.26 to 0.03 in postmenopausal), and percent body fat mass (≥43% vs. <35%: β = −0.19; 95% CI, −0.38 to 0.001 in premenopausal; β = −0.10; 95% CI, −0.24 to 0.05 in postmenopausal) in multivariable models including childhood body fatness and PMD.

Table 3.

Associations of current adult body fatness (current adult BMI, change in BMI since age 18 years, predicted body fat mass, predicted percent body fat mass) with V metric in the NHS and the NHSII, stratified by menopausal status at mammogram.

Beta coefficients (95% CIs)
Premenopausal women (N = 1,700)Postmenopausal women (N = 1,947)
NMV-adjustedaMV + childhood body fatnessbMV + childhood body fatness + PMDcNMV-adjustedaMV + childhood body fatnessbMV + childhood body fatness + PMDc
Current adult BMI, kg/m2 
 <21.0 285 0 (Ref) 0 (Ref) 0 (Ref) 243 0 (Ref) 0 (Ref) 0 (Ref) 
 21.0–22.9 351 0.08 (−0.06, 0.22) 0.08 (−0.05, 0.22) 0.21 (0.09, 0.34) 335 −0.05 (−0.20, 0.09) −0.03 (−0.18, 0.12) 0.11 (−0.02, 0.24) 
 23.0–24.9 329 0.03 (−0.11, 0.17) 0.07 (−0.07, 0.21) 0.30 (0.17, 0.43) 390 −0.20 (−0.34, −0.06) −0.17 (−0.31, −0.02) 0.08 (−0.05, 0.20) 
 25.0–29.9 429 −0.29 (−0.43, −0.16) −0.25 (−0.38, −0.11) 0.14 (0.01, 0.27) 601 −0.48 (−0.61, −0.34) −0.43 (−0.56, −0.29) −0.01 (−0.13, 0.11) 
 ≥30.0 306 −0.85 (−1.00, −0.71) −0.74 (−0.89, −0.59) −0.12 (−0.27, 0.03) 378 −0.83 (−0.97, −0.68) −0.74 (−0.88, −0.59) −0.08 (−0.22, 0.05) 
P trend  <0.01 <0.01 <0.01  <0.01 <0.01 0.01 
 Per 1-kg/m2 increase −0.07 (−0.08, −0.06) −0.06 (−0.07, −0.05) −0.02 (−0.03, −0.01)  −0.07 (−0.08, −0.06) −0.06 (−0.07, −0.05) −0.01 (−0.02, −0.003) 
Change in BMI since age 18 years, kg/m2 
 ≤0  0 (Ref) 0 (Ref) 0 (Ref) 206 0 (Ref) 0 (Ref) 0 (Ref) 
 0.1–2.0 193 −0.10 (−0.26, 0.06) −0.09 (−0.25, 0.08) −0.01 (−0.15, 0.14) 291 −0.05 (−0.21, 0.11) −0.05 (−0.21, 0.11) 0.02 (−0.11, 0.16) 
 2.1–5.0 326 −0.07 (−0.22, 0.08) −0.07 (−0.22, 0.09) 0.14 (−0.002, 0.28) 618 −0.10 (−0.24, 0.05) −0.11 (−0.25, 0.04) 0.10 (−0.02, 0.23) 
 5.1–7.0 560 −0.28 (−0.45, −0.11) −0.27 (−0.44, −0.10) 0.11 (−0.05, 0.27) 300 −0.19 (−0.36, −0.03) −0.20 (−0.36, −0.04) 0.10 (−0.04, 0.25) 
 >7.0 239 −0.46 (−0.62, −0.31) −0.45 (−0.60, −0.29) −0.03 (−0.18, 0.12) 532 −0.52 (−0.67, −0.37) −0.52 (−0.67, −0.37) −0.04 (−0.17, 0.09) 
P trend 382 <0.01 <0.01 0.47  <0.01 <0.01 0.09 
 Per 1-kg/m2 increase −0.05 (−0.06, −0.03) −0.04 (−0.06, −0.03) −0.004 (−0.02, 0.01)  −0.05 (−0.06, −0.03) −0.05 (−0.06, −0.04) −0.01 (−0.02, 0.001) 
 Premenopausal women (N = 1,078)d Postmenopausal women (N = 1,464)d 
Predicted body fat mass, kg 
 <20.0 272 0 (Ref) 0 (Ref) 0 (Ref) 250 0 (Ref) 0 (Ref) 0 (Ref) 
 20.0–24.9 331 0.15 (0.0001, 0.29) 0.17 (0.02, 0.31) 0.32 (0.19, 0.45) 427 −0.11 (−0.25, 0.03) −0.10 (−0.24, 0.05) 0.05 (−0.07, 0.18) 
 25.0–29.9 201 −0.21 (−0.37, −0.04) −0.15 (−0.31, 0.02) 0.16 (0.01, 0.32) 342 −0.32 (−0.47, −0.17) −0.29 (−0.44, −0.14) 0.003 (−0.13, 0.13) 
 30.0–34.9 115 −0.39 (−0.59, −0.19) −0.32 (−0.51, −0.12) 0.08 (−0.11, 0.26) 197 −0.57 (−0.74, −0.40) −0.52 (−0.69, −0.35) −0.12 (−0.27, 0.03) 
 ≥35.0 159 −0.75 (−0.93, −0.57) −0.64 (−0.82, −0.45) −0.05 (−0.23, 0.13) 248 −0.83 (−0.99, −0.67) −0.75 (−0.91, −0.58) −0.12 (−0.26, 0.03) 
P trend  <0.01 <0.01 0.06  <0.01 <0.01 0.01 
 Per 1-kg increase −0.03 (−0.04, −0.03) −0.03 (−0.04, −0.02) −0.01 (−0.01, 0.0004)  −0.04 (−0.04, −0.03) −0.03 (−0.04, −0.03) −0.01 (−0.01, −0.001) 
Predicted percent body fat mass 
 <35.0 397 0 (Ref) 0 (Ref) 0 (Ref) 299 0 (Ref) 0 (Ref) 0 (Ref) 
 35.0–36.9 234 0.13 (−0.02, 0.27) 0.15 (0.01, 0.29) 0.29 (0.15, 0.42) 317 −0.04 (−0.19, 0.10) −0.02 (−0.17, 0.12) 0.14 (0.02, 0.26) 
 37.0–39.9 207 −0.38 (−0.53, −0.23) −0.34 (−0.49, −0.19) 0.03 (−0.12, 0.18) 363 −0.25 (−0.39, −0.11) −0.22 (−0.36, −0.08) 0.07 (−0.05, 0.20) 
 40.0–42.9 117 −0.45 (−0.64, −0.27) −0.38 (−0.57, −0.20) −0.01 (−0.18, 0.17) 233 −0.57 (−0.73, −0.41) −0.52 (−0.68, −0.36) −0.06 (−0.20, 0.08) 
 ≥43.0 123 −0.92 (−1.10, −0.73) −0.80 (−0.99, −0.61) −0.19 (−0.38, 0.001) 252 −0.83 (−0.99, −0.67) −0.75 (−0.91, −0.59) −0.10 (−0.24, 0.05) 
P trend  <0.01 <0.01 0.02  <0.01 <0.01 0.01 
 Per 1% increase −0.07 (−0.08, −0.06) −0.06 (−0.07, −0.05) −0.02 (−0.03, −0.002)  −0.07 (−0.08, −0.06) −0.06 (−0.07, −0.05) −0.01 (−0.02, −0.003) 
Beta coefficients (95% CIs)
Premenopausal women (N = 1,700)Postmenopausal women (N = 1,947)
NMV-adjustedaMV + childhood body fatnessbMV + childhood body fatness + PMDcNMV-adjustedaMV + childhood body fatnessbMV + childhood body fatness + PMDc
Current adult BMI, kg/m2 
 <21.0 285 0 (Ref) 0 (Ref) 0 (Ref) 243 0 (Ref) 0 (Ref) 0 (Ref) 
 21.0–22.9 351 0.08 (−0.06, 0.22) 0.08 (−0.05, 0.22) 0.21 (0.09, 0.34) 335 −0.05 (−0.20, 0.09) −0.03 (−0.18, 0.12) 0.11 (−0.02, 0.24) 
 23.0–24.9 329 0.03 (−0.11, 0.17) 0.07 (−0.07, 0.21) 0.30 (0.17, 0.43) 390 −0.20 (−0.34, −0.06) −0.17 (−0.31, −0.02) 0.08 (−0.05, 0.20) 
 25.0–29.9 429 −0.29 (−0.43, −0.16) −0.25 (−0.38, −0.11) 0.14 (0.01, 0.27) 601 −0.48 (−0.61, −0.34) −0.43 (−0.56, −0.29) −0.01 (−0.13, 0.11) 
 ≥30.0 306 −0.85 (−1.00, −0.71) −0.74 (−0.89, −0.59) −0.12 (−0.27, 0.03) 378 −0.83 (−0.97, −0.68) −0.74 (−0.88, −0.59) −0.08 (−0.22, 0.05) 
P trend  <0.01 <0.01 <0.01  <0.01 <0.01 0.01 
 Per 1-kg/m2 increase −0.07 (−0.08, −0.06) −0.06 (−0.07, −0.05) −0.02 (−0.03, −0.01)  −0.07 (−0.08, −0.06) −0.06 (−0.07, −0.05) −0.01 (−0.02, −0.003) 
Change in BMI since age 18 years, kg/m2 
 ≤0  0 (Ref) 0 (Ref) 0 (Ref) 206 0 (Ref) 0 (Ref) 0 (Ref) 
 0.1–2.0 193 −0.10 (−0.26, 0.06) −0.09 (−0.25, 0.08) −0.01 (−0.15, 0.14) 291 −0.05 (−0.21, 0.11) −0.05 (−0.21, 0.11) 0.02 (−0.11, 0.16) 
 2.1–5.0 326 −0.07 (−0.22, 0.08) −0.07 (−0.22, 0.09) 0.14 (−0.002, 0.28) 618 −0.10 (−0.24, 0.05) −0.11 (−0.25, 0.04) 0.10 (−0.02, 0.23) 
 5.1–7.0 560 −0.28 (−0.45, −0.11) −0.27 (−0.44, −0.10) 0.11 (−0.05, 0.27) 300 −0.19 (−0.36, −0.03) −0.20 (−0.36, −0.04) 0.10 (−0.04, 0.25) 
 >7.0 239 −0.46 (−0.62, −0.31) −0.45 (−0.60, −0.29) −0.03 (−0.18, 0.12) 532 −0.52 (−0.67, −0.37) −0.52 (−0.67, −0.37) −0.04 (−0.17, 0.09) 
P trend 382 <0.01 <0.01 0.47  <0.01 <0.01 0.09 
 Per 1-kg/m2 increase −0.05 (−0.06, −0.03) −0.04 (−0.06, −0.03) −0.004 (−0.02, 0.01)  −0.05 (−0.06, −0.03) −0.05 (−0.06, −0.04) −0.01 (−0.02, 0.001) 
 Premenopausal women (N = 1,078)d Postmenopausal women (N = 1,464)d 
Predicted body fat mass, kg 
 <20.0 272 0 (Ref) 0 (Ref) 0 (Ref) 250 0 (Ref) 0 (Ref) 0 (Ref) 
 20.0–24.9 331 0.15 (0.0001, 0.29) 0.17 (0.02, 0.31) 0.32 (0.19, 0.45) 427 −0.11 (−0.25, 0.03) −0.10 (−0.24, 0.05) 0.05 (−0.07, 0.18) 
 25.0–29.9 201 −0.21 (−0.37, −0.04) −0.15 (−0.31, 0.02) 0.16 (0.01, 0.32) 342 −0.32 (−0.47, −0.17) −0.29 (−0.44, −0.14) 0.003 (−0.13, 0.13) 
 30.0–34.9 115 −0.39 (−0.59, −0.19) −0.32 (−0.51, −0.12) 0.08 (−0.11, 0.26) 197 −0.57 (−0.74, −0.40) −0.52 (−0.69, −0.35) −0.12 (−0.27, 0.03) 
 ≥35.0 159 −0.75 (−0.93, −0.57) −0.64 (−0.82, −0.45) −0.05 (−0.23, 0.13) 248 −0.83 (−0.99, −0.67) −0.75 (−0.91, −0.58) −0.12 (−0.26, 0.03) 
P trend  <0.01 <0.01 0.06  <0.01 <0.01 0.01 
 Per 1-kg increase −0.03 (−0.04, −0.03) −0.03 (−0.04, −0.02) −0.01 (−0.01, 0.0004)  −0.04 (−0.04, −0.03) −0.03 (−0.04, −0.03) −0.01 (−0.01, −0.001) 
Predicted percent body fat mass 
 <35.0 397 0 (Ref) 0 (Ref) 0 (Ref) 299 0 (Ref) 0 (Ref) 0 (Ref) 
 35.0–36.9 234 0.13 (−0.02, 0.27) 0.15 (0.01, 0.29) 0.29 (0.15, 0.42) 317 −0.04 (−0.19, 0.10) −0.02 (−0.17, 0.12) 0.14 (0.02, 0.26) 
 37.0–39.9 207 −0.38 (−0.53, −0.23) −0.34 (−0.49, −0.19) 0.03 (−0.12, 0.18) 363 −0.25 (−0.39, −0.11) −0.22 (−0.36, −0.08) 0.07 (−0.05, 0.20) 
 40.0–42.9 117 −0.45 (−0.64, −0.27) −0.38 (−0.57, −0.20) −0.01 (−0.18, 0.17) 233 −0.57 (−0.73, −0.41) −0.52 (−0.68, −0.36) −0.06 (−0.20, 0.08) 
 ≥43.0 123 −0.92 (−1.10, −0.73) −0.80 (−0.99, −0.61) −0.19 (−0.38, 0.001) 252 −0.83 (−0.99, −0.67) −0.75 (−0.91, −0.59) −0.10 (−0.24, 0.05) 
P trend  <0.01 <0.01 0.02  <0.01 <0.01 0.01 
 Per 1% increase −0.07 (−0.08, −0.06) −0.06 (−0.07, −0.05) −0.02 (−0.03, −0.002)  −0.07 (−0.08, −0.06) −0.06 (−0.07, −0.05) −0.01 (−0.02, −0.003) 

Note: V measures = V75 erosion, low resolution.

aMV-adjusted model includes age (years, continuous), race (white/nonwhite), personal history of benign breast disease (yes/no), family history of breast cancer (yes/no), parity/age at first birth (nulliparous, 1–2 births/<25 years, 1–2 births/25–29 years, 1–2 births/≥30 years, ≥3 births/<25 years, ≥3 births/≥25 years, parous/missing age at first birth), alcohol use (0, 0.1–4.9, 5.0–14.9, ≥15 g/d, missing), smoking (never, former, current), breastfeeding (<1, 1–6, 7–12, ≥13 months), and, in postmenopausal women, age at menopause (≤44, 45–49, 50–54, ≥55 years, missing) and postmenopausal hormone use (never, former, current). Models for change in BMI since age 18 years additionally include BMI at age 18 (kg/m2).

bAdditionally includes childhood body fatness (level 1–4.5+, continuous) in the MV-adjusted model.

cAdditionally includes childhood body fatness (level 1–4.5+, continuous) and percent mammographic density (square-root transformed, continuous) in the MV-adjusted model.

dPredicted body fat mass and percent fat mass at mammogram were calculated using the formula developed in the NHANES on the basis of age, race, height, weight, and waist circumference. Because 622 premenopausal and 483 postmenopausal women were missing information on waist circumference, 1,078 premenopausal and 1,464 postmenopausal women were included in these analyses.

Adult height

In both pre- and postmenopausal women, adult height (≥67.0 vs. <63.0 inches) was not associated with V (MV model: β = −0.03; 95% CI, −0.16 to 0.11, P trend = 0.67 in premenopausal; β = 0.08; 95% CI, −0.05 to 0.21, P trend = 0.61 in postmenopausal; Table 4).

Table 4.

Associations of adult height with V metric in the NHS and the NHSII, stratified by menopausal status at mammogram.

Beta coefficients (95% CIs)
Premenopausal women (N = 1,700)Postmenopausal women (N = 1,947)
NMV-adjustedaNMV-adjusteda
Height, inches 
 <63.0 294 0 (Ref) 377 0 (Ref) 
 63.0–64.9 518 0.001 (−0.13, 0.13) 601 0.20 (0.08, 0.32) 
 65.0–65.9 232 −0.06 (−0.21, 0.10) 278 0.10 (−0.04, 0.24) 
 66.0–66.9 220 0.001 (−0.16, 0.16) 258 0.13 (−0.01, 0.28) 
 ≥67.0 436 −0.03 (−0.16, 0.11) 433 0.08 (−0.05, 0.21) 
P trend  0.67  0.61 
 Per 1-inch increase  −0.005 (−0.03, 0.02)  0.005 (−0.01, 0.03) 
Beta coefficients (95% CIs)
Premenopausal women (N = 1,700)Postmenopausal women (N = 1,947)
NMV-adjustedaNMV-adjusteda
Height, inches 
 <63.0 294 0 (Ref) 377 0 (Ref) 
 63.0–64.9 518 0.001 (−0.13, 0.13) 601 0.20 (0.08, 0.32) 
 65.0–65.9 232 −0.06 (−0.21, 0.10) 278 0.10 (−0.04, 0.24) 
 66.0–66.9 220 0.001 (−0.16, 0.16) 258 0.13 (−0.01, 0.28) 
 ≥67.0 436 −0.03 (−0.16, 0.11) 433 0.08 (−0.05, 0.21) 
P trend  0.67  0.61 
 Per 1-inch increase  −0.005 (−0.03, 0.02)  0.005 (−0.01, 0.03) 

Note: V measures = V75 erosion, low resolution.

aMV-adjusted model includes age (years, continuous), race (white/nonwhite), personal history of benign breast disease (yes/no), family history of breast cancer (yes/no), parity/age at first birth (nulliparous, 1–2 births/<25 years, 1–2 births/25–29 years, 1–2 births/≥30 years, ≥3 births/<25 years, ≥3 births/≥25 years, parous/missing age at first birth), alcohol use (0, 0.1–4.9, 5.0–14.9, ≥15 g/d, missing), smoking (never, former, current), breastfeeding (<1, 1–6, 7–12, ≥13 months), childhood body fatness (1–4.5+ level, continuous), and, in postmenopausal women, age at menopause (≤44, 45–49, 50–54, ≥55 years, missing) and postmenopausal hormone use (never, former, current).

For body fatness measures, the associations with V tend to vary by levels of PMD (low vs. high; all P interaction < 0.05; Supplementary Table S1). For all anthropometric exposures evaluated, similar results were found with high-resolution V (Supplementary Table S2) and when we considered alternate breast erosion percentages (V65) for mammographic texture measurement and stratified by digitization method of mammograms.

Associations of early-life and adult anthropometrics with mammographic density measures (PMD, dense area, and nondense area) with and without adjustment for V are presented in Supplementary Tables S3 and S4. After adjustment for V, the associations of body fatness measures with PMD and absolute nondense area persisted (Supplementary Table S3 for premenopausal; Supplementary Table S4 for postmenopausal). Height was positively associated with PMD adjusting for V in premenopausal women but not in postmenopausal women.

To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to examine the relationships between anthropometrics and intensity variation on a mammogram. Among both pre- and postmenopausal women, we observed a strong inverse association of early-life body fatness with adult mammographic intensity variation measure V after adjustment for current BMI and PMD. Our data suggest that the correlations of V with other mammographic features such as PMD cannot fully explain the association and provide evidence for an independent association. Current adult BMI was also inversely associated with V but the association was largely attenuated after adjustment for PMD. Adult height was not associated with V despite its positive association with premenopausal PMD. We also confirmed inverse associations of childhood and adult body fatness with PMD and positive associations with absolute nondense area, independent of V.

Our findings of inverse associations between early-life body fatness and V are consistent with those from a British cohort of premenopausal women (18) that examined the associations with the Wolfe grade (37), a qualitative classification of parenchymal patterns that considers both breast density and some texture features (23). The strong inverse associations of early-life body fatness with both PMD and V shown in the present study also mirror the similar inverse association of early-life body fatness with breast cancer risk that has been consistently reported in previous studies (4–8). Our data support the notion that early-life body fatness may influence the lifelong risk of breast cancer through reducing intensity variation of dense tissue as well as the overall breast density. In a previous report in the NHS and NHSII, we observed that the association between early-life body fatness and breast cancer risk may be partially mediated by PMD (approximately 71%–82% in premenopausal and 26%–98% in postmenopausal women; ref. 38). It is possible that the breast density–mediated pathways may explain a greater proportion of the early-life body fatness and breast cancer relationship than what was previously estimated if texture variation (e.g., grayscale intensity variation, spatial arrangement of pixels) in mammographic density was also taken into account. Early-life body fatness is likely to have lifelong effects on breast tissue architecture and composition not mediated by adult exposures, as the associations with V and PMD were independent of adult BMI and other adult risk factors. These data are consistent with the hypothesis that the early-life period is a window of susceptibility to breast cancer during which breast tissues are particularly susceptible to stimuli. As shown in our previous report (39), early-life body fatness is also associated with lower adult levels of circulating insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-I, a known breast cancer risk factor. The possible lifelong IGF-1 reduction associated with early-life body fatness may represent a potential link between early-life body fatness and adult mammographic features (e.g., PMD, V). Although largely unknown, other links (e.g., tissue-specific hormone receptors, inflammation) may also exist to alter breast development and tissue composition, leading to lifelong changes in breast density and breast cancer risk. Further investigations are needed to elucidate the underlying pathomorphological characteristics and biological mechanisms related to mammographic intensity variation measures.

In contrast to our findings with early-life body fatness, we observed the associations of current adult body fatness with V were largely attenuated after adjustment for both childhood body fatness and PMD, suggesting that the associations were largely driven by correlations with childhood body fatness and PMD. However, the associations of PMD with adult body fatness persisted after adjustment for V and childhood body fatness. Our data suggest that body fatness during adulthood modifies the overall breast density but may not independently modify the intensity variation of dense tissues within the breast. Further investigations are needed to clarify the associations of current body fatness with mammographic intensity variation.

Adult height is believed to indicate early-life exposure to growth hormones that may contribute to increased breast density at young ages (21, 22). However, in the present analysis, height was not associated with V, independent of PMD, suggesting that V may not provide additional information on biological pathways of height.

We acknowledge this study has limitations. All anthropometric measures were self-reported and thus measurement error is likely to occur. However, early-life body fatness data have shown good correlations with measured data in a validation study (31). All anthropometric data were also collected prior to the mammogram and thus any resulting measurement error is likely to be nondifferential with respect to mammographic features. For mammographic density assessment, we used semiautomated Cumulus, an operator-assisted thresholding method, and thus the measurements are prone to intra- and interreader variability. However, many studies have consistently demonstrated that Cumulus produces a measure that is robust and a strong predictor of breast cancer risk (40). Digitized mammograms came from different platforms and time periods. These differences may also induce measurement variations in the V metric. However, given that these variables are unlikely to be correlated with the assessment of exposures (self-report of early-life and adult anthropometrics), it is unlikely that these variables confound the main associations but could still result in nondifferential measurement error that bias the results toward the null. Further, V indicates image intensity variation on mammograms but not necessarily the spatial arrangement of density and thus future studies are needed to further investigate the associations with texture variations using various other measures including those that capture spatial arrangement of dense tissue. Lastly, our study population was mostly white and thus our results may not be generalizable to other populations, particularly Asian women with dense breasts.

Despite these limitations, this study has important strengths. This is the first study to examine the associations of early-life and adult anthropometrics with texture variation on a mammogram. Using automated techniques and quantitative assessment of V, we reduced measurement error and increased reliability of this measure. Using data from different imaging resolutions and different cutoff points for image processing in sensitivity analyses, we observed similar results, which further supports the robustness of our results. We also adjusted for related mammographic density measures including PMD in the regression models to evaluate the associations with V independent of these correlated features. Additionally, we had a large sample size and were able to carefully adjust for a range of potential confounders.

In summary, we observed a strong inverse association of early-life body fatness with adult mammographic texture measure V, independent of current BMI and PMD. Current body fatness was suggestively associated with lower V, independent of childhood body fatness and PMD. Adult height was not associated with V. These findings suggest that early-life body fatness may have lifelong impact on breast tissue architecture beyond breast density (dense vs. nondense tissue).

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Conception and design: M.S. Rice, E.T. Warner, J.J. Heine, R.M. Tamimi

Development of methodology: H. Oh, E.T. Warner, J.J. Heine, R.M. Tamimi

Acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.): A.H. Eliassen, J.J. Heine, R.M. Tamimi

Analysis and interpretation of data (e.g., statistical analysis, biostatistics, computational analysis): H. Oh, M.S. Rice, E.T. Warner, K.A. Bertrand, E.E. Fowler, B.A. Rosner, J.J. Heine, R.M. Tamimi

Writing, review, and/or revision of the manuscript: H. Oh, M.S. Rice, E.T. Warner, K.A. Bertrand, A.H. Eliassen, B.A. Rosner, J.J. Heine, R.M. Tamimi

Administrative, technical, or material support (i.e., reporting or organizing data, constructing databases): E.E. Fowler, A.H. Eliassen, J.J. Heine, R.M. Tamimi

Study supervision: R.M. Tamimi

We would like to thank the participants and staff of the NHS and NHSII for their valuable contributions as well as the following state cancer registries for their help: AL, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, NE, NH, NJ, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, VA, WA, WY. The authors assume full responsibility for analyses and interpretation of these data. This work was supported by the NCI at the NIH (R.M. Tamimi, grant number CA131332, CA175080, P01 CA087969; A.H. Eliassen, grant number UM1 CA186107 and UM1 CA176726; J.J. Heine, grant number U01 CA200464; E.T. Warner, grant number K01CA188075), Avon Foundation for Women, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, and Breast Cancer Research Foundation. H. Oh was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant (NRF-2019R1G1A1004227, NRF-2019S1A3A2099973), Korea University Grant (K1808781), and Korea University Research Institute of Health Sciences Grant. K.A. Bertrand was supported by the Dahod Breast Cancer Research Program at Boston University School of Medicine.

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.
Kabat
GC
,
Heo
M
,
Kamensky
V
,
Miller
AB
,
Rohan
TE
. 
Adult height in relation to risk of cancer in a cohort of Canadian women
.
Int J Cancer
2013
;
132
:
1125
32
.
2.
Zhang
B
,
Shu
XO
,
Delahanty
RJ
,
Zeng
C
,
Michailidou
K
,
Bolla
MK
, et al
Height and breast cancer risk: evidence from prospective studies and Mendelian randomization
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2015
;
107
.
doi: 10.1093/jnci/djv219
.
3.
van den Brandt
PA
,
Spiegelman
D
,
Yaun
SS
,
Adami
HO
,
Beeson
L
,
Folsom
AR
, et al
Pooled analysis of prospective cohort studies on height, weight, and breast cancer risk
.
Am J Epidemiol
2000
;
152
:
514
27
.
4.
Baer
HJ
,
Tworoger
SS
,
Hankinson
SE
,
Willett
WC
. 
Body fatness at young ages and risk of breast cancer throughout life
.
Am J Epidemiol
2010
;
171
:
1183
94
.
5.
Premenopausal Breast Cancer Collaborative Group
,
Schoemaker
MJ
,
Nichols
HB
,
Wright
LB
,
Brook
MN
,
Jones
ME
, et al
Association of body mass index and age with subsequent breast cancer risk in premenopausal women
.
JAMA Oncol
2018
;
4
:
e181771
.
6.
Ahlgren
M
,
Melbye
M
,
Wohlfahrt
J
,
Sorensen
TI
. 
Growth patterns and the risk of breast cancer in women
.
N Engl J Med
2004
;
351
:
1619
26
.
7.
Fagherazzi
G
,
Guillas
G
,
Boutron-Ruault
MC
,
Clavel-Chapelon
F
,
Mesrine
S
. 
Body shape throughout life and the risk for breast cancer at adulthood in the French E3N cohort
.
Eur J Cancer Prev
2013
;
22
:
29
37
.
8.
Weiderpass
E
,
Braaten
T
,
Magnusson
C
,
Kumle
M
,
Vainio
H
,
Lund
E
, et al
A prospective study of body size in different periods of life and risk of premenopausal breast cancer
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2004
;
13
:
1121
7
.
9.
Gaudet
MM
,
Carter
BD
,
Patel
AV
,
Teras
LR
,
Jacobs
EJ
,
Gapstur
SM
. 
Waist circumference, body mass index, and postmenopausal breast cancer incidence in the Cancer Prevention Study-II Nutrition Cohort
.
Cancer Causes Control
2014
;
25
:
737
45
.
10.
Rohan
TE
,
Heo
M
,
Choi
L
,
Datta
M
,
Freudenheim
JL
,
Kamensky
V
, et al
Body fat and breast cancer risk in postmenopausal women: a longitudinal study
.
J Cancer Epidemiol
2013
;
2013
:
754815
.
11.
Neuhouser
ML
,
Aragaki
AK
,
Prentice
RL
,
Manson
JE
,
Chlebowski
R
,
Carty
CL
, et al
Overweight, obesity, and postmenopausal invasive breast cancer risk: a secondary analysis of the Women's Health Initiative Randomized Clinical Trials
.
JAMA Oncol
2015
;
1
:
611
21
.
12.
Schroeder
DG
,
Martorell
R
,
Rivera
JA
,
Ruel
MT
,
Habicht
JP
. 
Age differences in the impact of nutritional supplementation on growth
.
J Nutr
1995
;
125
:
1051S
9S
.
13.
Warner
ET
,
Hu
R
,
Collins
LC
,
Beck
AH
,
Schnitt
S
,
Rosner
B
, et al
Height and body size in childhood, adolescence, and young adulthood and breast cancer risk according to molecular subtype in the Nurses' Health Studies
.
Cancer Prev Res (Phila)
2016
;
9
:
732
8
.
14.
Saftlas
AF
,
Hoover
RN
,
Brinton
LA
,
Szklo
M
,
Olson
DR
,
Salane
M
, et al
Mammographic densities and risk of breast cancer
.
Cancer
1991
;
67
:
2833
8
.
15.
Boyd
NF
,
Byng
JW
,
Jong
RA
,
Fishell
EK
,
Little
LE
,
Miller
AB
, et al
Quantitative classification of mammographic densities and breast cancer risk: results from the Canadian National Breast Screening Study
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
1995
;
87
:
670
5
.
16.
Byrne
C
,
Schairer
C
,
Wolfe
J
,
Parekh
N
,
Salane
M
,
Brinton
LA
, et al
Mammographic features and breast cancer risk: effects with time, age, and menopause status
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
1995
;
87
:
1622
9
.
17.
Jeffreys
M
,
Warren
R
,
Gunnell
D
,
McCarron
P
,
Smith
GD
. 
Life course breast cancer risk factors and adult breast density (United Kingdom)
.
Cancer Causes Control
2004
;
15
:
947
55
.
18.
McCormack
VA
,
dos Santos Silva
I
,
De Stavola
BL
,
Perry
N
,
Vinnicombe
S
,
Swerdlow
AJ
, et al
Life-course body size and perimenopausal mammographic parenchymal patterns in the MRC 1946 British birth cohort
.
Br J Cancer
2003
;
89
:
852
9
.
19.
Sellers
TA
,
Vachon
CM
,
Pankratz
VS
,
Janney
CA
,
Fredericksen
Z
,
Brandt
KR
, et al
Association of childhood and adolescent anthropometric factors, physical activity, and diet with adult mammographic breast density
.
Am J Epidemiol
2007
;
166
:
456
64
.
20.
Andersen
ZJ
,
Baker
JL
,
Bihrmann
K
,
Vejborg
I
,
Sorensen
TI
,
Lynge
E
. 
Birth weight, childhood body mass index, and height in relation to mammographic density and breast cancer: a register-based cohort study
.
Breast Cancer Res
2014
;
16
:
R4
.
21.
Sala
E
,
Warren
R
,
McCann
J
,
Duffy
S
,
Luben
R
,
Day
N
. 
High-risk mammographic parenchymal patterns and anthropometric measures: a case-control study
.
Br J Cancer
1999
;
81
:
1257
61
.
22.
Dorgan
JF
,
Klifa
C
,
Shepherd
JA
,
Egleston
BL
,
Kwiterovich
PO
,
Himes
JH
, et al
Height, adiposity and body fat distribution and breast density in young women
.
Breast Cancer Res
2012
;
14
:
R107
.
23.
Manduca
A
,
Carston
MJ
,
Heine
JJ
,
Scott
CG
,
Pankratz
VS
,
Brandt
KR
, et al
Texture features from mammographic images and risk of breast cancer
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2009
;
18
:
837
45
.
24.
Rice
M
,
Bertrand
KA
,
Heine
JJ
,
Rosner
B
,
Tamimi
RM
. 
Texture variation on a mammogram and risk of breast cancer [abstract]
. In:
Proceedings of the 107th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2016 Apr 16–20; New Orleans, LA
.
Philadelphia (PA)
:
AACR
; Cancer Res 2016;76(14 Suppl):Abstract nr 2595.
25.
Wang
C
,
Brentnall
AR
,
Cuzick
J
,
Harkness
EF
,
Evans
DG
,
Astley
S
. 
A novel and fully automated mammographic texture analysis for risk prediction: results from two case-control studies
.
Breast Cancer Res
2017
;
19
:
114
.
26.
Bao
Y
,
Bertoia
ML
,
Lenart
EB
,
Stampfer
MJ
,
Willett
WC
,
Speizer
FE
, et al
Origin, methods, and evolution of the three Nurses' Health Studies
.
Am J Public Health
2016
;
106
:
1573
81
.
27.
Schernhammer
ES
,
Holly
JM
,
Pollak
MN
,
Hankinson
SE
. 
Circulating levels of insulin-like growth factors, their binding proteins, and breast cancer risk
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2005
;
14
:
699
704
.
28.
Tworoger
SS
,
Sluss
P
,
Hankinson
SE
. 
Association between plasma prolactin concentrations and risk of breast cancer among predominately premenopausal women
.
Cancer Res
2006
;
66
:
2476
82
.
29.
Hankinson
SE
,
Willett
WC
,
Colditz
GA
,
Hunter
DJ
,
Michaud
DS
,
Deroo
B
, et al
Circulating concentrations of insulin-like growth factor-I and risk of breast cancer
.
Lancet
1998
;
351
:
1393
6
.
30.
Stunkard
AJ
,
Sorensen
T
,
Schulsinger
F
. 
Use of the Danish Adoption Register for the study of obesity and thinness
.
Res Publ Assoc Res Nerv Ment Dis
1983
;
60
:
115
20
.
31.
Must
A
,
Willett
WC
,
Dietz
WH
. 
Remote recall of childhood height, weight, and body build by elderly subjects
.
Am J Epidemiol
1993
;
138
:
56
64
.
32.
Lee
DH
,
Keum
N
,
Hu
FB
,
Orav
EJ
,
Rimm
EB
,
Sun
Q
, et al
Development and validation of anthropometric prediction equations for lean body mass, fat mass and percent fat in adults using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 1999–2006
.
Br J Nutr
2017
;
118
:
858
66
.
33.
Rice
MS
,
Tworoger
SS
,
Bertrand
KA
,
Hankinson
SE
,
Rosner
BA
,
Feeney
YB
, et al
Immunoassay and Nb2 lymphoma bioassay prolactin levels and mammographic density in premenopausal and postmenopausal women the Nurses' Health Studies
.
Breast Cancer Res Treat
2015
;
149
:
245
53
.
34.
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
.
35.
Heine
JJ
,
Fowler
EE
,
Flowers
CI
. 
Full field digital mammography and breast density: comparison of calibrated and noncalibrated measurements
.
Acad Radiol
2011
;
18
:
1430
6
.
36.
Heine
JJ
,
Scott
CG
,
Sellers
TA
,
Brandt
KR
,
Serie
DJ
,
Wu
FF
, et al
A novel automated mammographic density measure and breast cancer risk
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2012
;
104
:
1028
37
.
37.
Wolfe
JN
. 
Breast patterns as an index of risk for developing breast cancer
.
AJR Am J Roentgenol
1976
;
126
:
1130
7
.
38.
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
.
39.
Poole
EM
,
Tworoger
SS
,
Hankinson
SE
,
Schernhammer
ES
,
Pollak
MN
,
Baer
HJ
. 
Body size in early life and adult levels of insulin-like growth factor 1 and insulin-like growth factor binding protein 3
.
Am J Epidemiol
2011
;
174
:
642
51
.
40.
Astley
SM
,
Harkness
EF
,
Sergeant
JC
,
Warwick
J
,
Stavrinos
P
,
Warren
R
, et al
A comparison of five methods of measuring mammographic density: a case-control study
.
Breast Cancer Res
2018
;
20
:
10
.