Table 3.
Percentage dense volume versus dense volume measures in relation to breast cancer risk (bootstrap analysis results)
| Total breast cancers | Significance of the difference between coefficients in PDV and DV models | Difference between coefficients in PDV and DV models | 95% CI of difference between coefficients in PDV and DV models |
|---|---|---|---|
| VDG vs VDG-like categories | Non significant | C2: 0.15 | (-0.25 ; 0.56) |
| C3: 0.15 | (-0.23 ; 0.52) | ||
| C4: -0.11 | (-0.51 ; 0.27) | ||
| Quartiles PDV vs DV | Non significant | Q2: 0.16 | (-0.24 ; 0.54) |
| Q3: 0.21 | (-0.17 ; 0.57) | ||
| Q4: -0.07 | (-0.37 ; 0.24) | ||
| Continuous PDV vs DV | Non significant | -0.07 | (-0.15 ; 0.01) |
| Screen-detected cancers | |||
| VDG vs VDG-like categories | Non significant | C2: -0.03 | (-0.56 ; 0.46) |
| C3: -0.17 | (-0.64 ; 0.28) | ||
| C4: -0.49 | (-1.08 ; 0.07) | ||
| Quartiles PDV vs DV | Non significant | Q2: -0.14 | (-0.65 ; 0.32) |
| Q3: -0.14 | (-0.62 ; 0.34) | ||
| Q3: -0.49 | (-0.90 ; -0.12) | ||
| Continuous PDV vs DV | Significant, stronger for DV | -0.13 | (-0.24 ; -0.03) |
| Interval cancers | |||
| VDG vs VDG-like categories | Non significant (except for C2 and C3: stronger for PDV) | C2: 0.73 | (0.01 ; 1.56) |
| C3: 0.92 | (0.26 ; 1.68) | ||
| C4: 0.58 | (-0.06 ; 1.28) | ||
| Quartiles PDV vs DV | Significant, stronger for PDV | Q2: 0.90 | (0.21 ; 1.60) |
| Q3: 1.02 | (0.40 ; 1.66) | ||
| Q3: 0.77 | (0.26 ; 1.34) | ||
| Continuous PDV vs DV | non significant | 0.01 | (-0.11 ; 0.13) |
VDG Volpara density grade, PDV percentage dense volume, DV dense volume
Significant: none of the bootstrap 95% CIs for differences between quartile (Q)2, Q3, or Q4 (or category (C)2, C3, or C4) contain zero, otherwise they were non-significant
Bold text means that the difference between coefficients in PDV an DV models are significant