Table 1.
Overall (N = 13,434) | No (N = 9,701) | Yes (N = 3,733) | p valuea | p valueb | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Histology | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | |||
NP | 8,449 | 7,774 (92.0 %) | 675 (8.0 %) | ||
PDWA | 4,285 | 1,613 (37.6 %) | 2,672 (62.4 %) | ||
AH | 700 | 314 (44.9 %) | 386 (55.1 %) | ||
Age at BBD diagnosis | <0.0001 | 0.7377 | |||
<45 | 4,375 | 3,432 (78.4 %) | 943 (21.6 %) | ||
45–55 | 3,943 | 2,602 (66.0 %) | 1,341 (34.0 %) | ||
55+ | 5,116 | 3,667 (71.7 %) | 1,449 (28.3 %) | ||
Year of BBD | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | |||
1967–1981 | 4,299 | 3,205 (74.6 %) | 1,094 (25.4 %) | ||
1982–2001 | 9,135 | 6,496 (71.1 %) | 2,639 (28.9 %) | ||
Involution | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | |||
Unknownc | 1,249 | 1,115 | 134 | ||
No | 2,250 | 1,642 (73.0 %) | 608 (27.0 %) | ||
1–74 % TDLU | 6,633 | 4,116 (62.1 %) | 2,517 (37.9 %) | ||
>75 % TDLU | 3,302 | 2,828 (85.6 %) | 474 (14.4 %) | ||
Columnar cell alteration | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | |||
No | 8,963 | 8,391 (93.6 %) | 572 (6.4 %) | ||
Yes | 4,467 | 1,306 (29.2 %) | 3,161 (70.8 %) | ||
Family history of breast cancer | <0.0001 | 0.0365 | |||
Unknown | 858 | 684 | 174 | ||
None | 7,506 | 5,485 (73.1 %) | 2,021 (26.9 %) | ||
Weak | 3,339 | 2,362 (70.7 %) | 977 (29.3 %) | ||
Strong | 1,731 | 1,170 (67.6 %) | 561 (32.4 %) | ||
HRT use | <0.0001 | 0.8649 | |||
Unknown | 3,993 | 3,046 | 947 | ||
Never used HRT | 4,199 | 3,134 (74.6 %) | 1,065 (25.4 %) | ||
Used HRT | 5,242 | 3,521 (67.2 %) | 1,721 (32.8 %) | ||
Number of children | <0.0001 | 0.3792 | |||
Unknown | 3,422 | 2,626 | 796 | ||
Nulliparous | 1,399 | 1,042 (74.5 %) | 357 (25.5 %) | ||
1 | 1,064 | 781 (73.4 %) | 283 (26.6 %) | ||
2 | 2,985 | 2,146 (71.9 %) | 839 (28.1 %) | ||
3+ | 4,564 | 3,106 (68.1 %) | 1,458 (31.9 %) |
Numbers may not add to total number of subjects due to missing values for some variables
a p value from χ 2 test
b p value from multivariate logistic regression adjusting for age, year of BBD, histology, involution, columnar call alteration, family history, HRT use, and number of children. Only variables univariately significant were included in the multivariate analysis
cNo normal terminal duct lobular units present on the slide, so involution could not be assessed