Long-term Accuracy of Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Combining Classic Risk Factors and Breast Density

Optimal Breast Density Characterization Using a Three-Dimensional Automated Breast Densitometry System

Dense breasts are a risk factor for breast cancer. Assessment of breast density is important and radiologist-dependent. We objectively measured mammographic density using the three-dimensional automatic mammographic density measurement device Volpara™ and examined the criteria for combined use of ultrasonography (US). Of 1227 patients who underwent primary breast cancer surgery between January 2019 and April 2021 at our hospital, 441 were included. A case series study was conducted based on patient age, diagnostic accuracy, effects of mammography (MMG) combined with US, size of invasion, and calcifications. The mean density of both breasts according to the Volpara Density Grade (VDG) was 0–3.4% in 2 patients, 3.5–7.4% in 55 patients, 7.5–15.4% in 173 patients, and ≥15.5% in 211 patients. Breast density tended to be higher in younger patients. Diagnostic accuracy of MMG tended to decrease with increasing breast density. US detection rates were not associated with VDG on MMG and were favorable at all densities. The risk of a non-detected result was high in patients without malignant suspicious calcifications. Supplementary use of US for patients without suspicious calcifications on MMG and high breast density, particularly ≥25.5%, could improve the breast cancer detection rate.

Effects of Dezocine and Sufentanil on Th1/Th2 Balance in Breast Cancer Patients Undergoing Surgery

BACKGROUND

It is very important for breast cancer patients undergoing surgery to choose an opioid that has little effect on the immune system. The aim of this study is to compare the effects of dezocine or sufentanil on postoperative pain and Th1/Th2 balance in patients undergoing breast cancer surgery.

METHODS

Data from 92 breast cancer patients from January 2019 to July 2020 at Foshan Second People's Hospital (Guangdong, China) were analyzed. Sufentanil (SF) was used in group SF (n = 44) and dezocine (DE) in group DE (n = 48). The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores were assessed, and the percentages of Th1 cells and Th2 cells in peripheral blood were detected before anesthesia and at 2, 12, 24, and 48 hours after surgery.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the VAS scores between the two groups at 2, 24, and 48 hours after surgery (P > 0.05). The VAS scores at 12 hours after surgery in group DE were significantly lower than those in group SF with a statistically significant difference (P < 0.05). The percentage of Th1 cells in group DE at 2, 12, 24, and 48 hours after surgery was significantly lower than that in group SF (P < 0.05). The percentage of Th2 cells in group DE at 2, 12, 24, and 48 hours after surgery was significantly lower than that in group SF (P < 0.05). The Th1/Th2 ratio at 2, 12, 24, and 48 hours after surgery was significantly higher in group DE than that in group SF (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Dezocine for anesthesia induction and postoperative analgesia can maintain the balance of Th1/Th2 more stable than, with the same analgesia efficacy as, sufentanil during the early postoperative period in breast cancer patients undergoing surgery.

The evolving role of the Women's Health Specialist in cancer prevention and survivorship

IMPORTANCE AND OBJECTIVE

This review provides a framework for primary care physicians, internists, family doctors, NP's, PA's, and oncologists caring for women-henceforth referred to as Women's Health Specialists-to identify and screen patients who may be at high risk for inherited cancer syndromes; an intervention referred to as previvorship care. For women who undergo risk-reducing oophorectomy, survivorship care is critical to optimizing quality of life thereafter. In this paper, we review management of the unique survivorship needs and management options for women at risk for or with a cancer diagnosis, highlighting the importance of interdisciplinary care.

METHODS

To review the available previvorship and survivorship management strategies, a Pub Med search was performed using keywords "survivorship," "genetics," "cancer," "menopause," "hormone therapy," "screening" in addition to review of guidelines, position statements and expert, and committee opinions from the American College of OBGYN, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, The North American Menopause Society, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network , and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Women's Health Specialists are in a unique position to identify and screen women who may be at risk for inherited cancer syndromes as well as provide necessary survivorship management following transition from their oncologists' care.

Proton density water fraction as a reproducible MR-based measurement of breast density

PURPOSE

To introduce proton density water fraction (PDWF) as a confounder-corrected (CC) MR-based biomarker of mammographic breast density, a known risk factor for breast cancer.

METHODS

Chemical shift encoded (CSE) MR images were acquired using a low flip angle to provide proton density contrast from multiple echo times. Fat and water images, corrected for known biases, were produced by a six-echo CC CSE-MRI algorithm. Fibroglandular tissue (FGT) volume was calculated from whole-breast segmented PDWF maps at 1.5T and 3T. The method was evaluated in (1) a physical fat-water phantom and (2) normal volunteers. Results from two- and three-echo CSE-MRI methods were included for comparison.

RESULTS

Six-echo CC-CSE-MRI produced unbiased estimates of the total water volume in the phantom (mean bias 3.3%) and was reproducible across protocol changes (repeatability coefficient [RC] = 14.8 cm³ and 13.97 cm³ at 1.5T and 3.0T, respectively) and field strengths (RC = 51.7 cm³ ) in volunteers, while the two- and three-echo CSE-MRI approaches produced biased results in phantoms (mean bias 30.7% and 10.4%) that was less reproducible across field strengths in volunteers (RC = 82.3 cm³ and 126.3 cm³ ). Significant differences in measured FGT volume were found between the six-echo CC-CSE-MRI and the two- and three-echo CSE-MRI approaches (p = 0.002 and p = 0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The use of six-echo CC-CSE-MRI to create unbiased PDWF maps that reproducibly quantify FGT in the breast is demonstrated. Further studies are needed to correlate this quantitative MR biomarker for breast density with mammography and overall risk for breast cancer.

Deep-LIBRA: An artificial-intelligence method for robust quantification of breast density with independent validation in breast cancer risk assessment

Breast density is an important risk factor for breast cancer that also affects the specificity and sensitivity of screening mammography. Current federal legislation mandates reporting of breast density for all women undergoing breast cancer screening. Clinically, breast density is assessed visually using the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting And Data System (BI-RADS) scale. Here, we introduce an artificial intelligence (AI) method to estimate breast density from digital mammograms. Our method leverages deep learning using two convolutional neural network architectures to accurately segment the breast area. An AI algorithm combining superpixel generation and radiomic machine learning is then applied to differentiate dense from non-dense tissue regions within the breast, from which breast density is estimated. Our method was trained and validated on a multi-racial, multi-institutional dataset of 15,661 images (4,437 women), and then tested on an independent matched case-control dataset of 6368 digital mammograms (414 cases; 1178 controls) for both breast density estimation and case-control discrimination. On the independent dataset, breast percent density (PD) estimates from Deep-LIBRA and an expert reader were strongly correlated (Spearman correlation coefficient = 0.90). Moreover, in a model adjusted for age and BMI, Deep-LIBRA yielded a higher case-control discrimination performance (area under the ROC curve, AUC = 0.612 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.584, 0.640]) compared to four other widely-used research and commercial breast density assessment methods (AUCs = 0.528 to 0.599). Our results suggest a strong agreement of breast density estimates between Deep-LIBRA and gold-standard assessment by an expert reader, as well as improved performance in breast cancer risk assessment over state-of-the-art open-source and commercial methods.

Elevated risk thresholds predict endocrine risk-reducing medication use in the Athena screening registry

Risk-reducing endocrine therapy use, though the benefit is validated, is extremely low. The FDA has approved tamoxifen and raloxifene for a 5-year Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRAT) risk ≥ 1.67%. We examined the threshold at which high-risk women are likely to be using endocrine risk-reducing therapies among Athena Breast Health Network participants from 2011-2018. We identified high-risk women by a 5-year BCRAT risk ≥ 1.67% and those in the top 10% and 2.5% risk thresholds by age. We estimated the odds ratio (OR) of current medication use based on these thresholds using logistic regression. One thousand two hundred and one (1.2%) of 104,223 total participants used medication. Of the 33,082 participants with 5-year BCRAT risk ≥ 1.67%, 772 (2.3%) used medication. Of 2445 in the top 2.5% threshold, 209 (8.6%) used medication. Participants whose 5-year risk exceeded 1.67% were more likely to use medication than those whose risk was below this threshold, OR 3.94 (95% CI = 3.50-4.43). The top 2.5% was most strongly associated with medication usage, OR 9.50 (8.13-11.09) compared to the bottom 97.5%. Women exceeding a 5-year BCRAT ≥ 1.67% had modest medication use. We demonstrate that women in the top 2.5% have higher odds of medication use than those in the bottom 97.5% and compared to a risk of 1.67%. The top 2.5% threshold would more effectively target medication use and is being tested prospectively in a randomized control clinical trial.

Performance of the IBIS/Tyrer-Cuzick model of breast cancer risk by race and ethnicity in the Women's Health Initiative

BACKGROUND

The IBIS/Tyrer-Cuzick model is used clinically to guide breast cancer screening and prevention, but was developed primarily in non-Hispanic White women. Little is known about its long-term performance in a racially/ethnically diverse population.

METHODS

The Women's Health Initiative study enrolled postmenopausal women from 1993-1998. Women were included who were aged <80 years at enrollment with no prior breast cancer or mastectomy and with data required for IBIS/Tyrer-Cuzick calculation (weight; height; ages at menarche, first birth, and menopause; menopausal hormone therapy use; and family history of breast or ovarian cancer). Calibration was assessed by the ratio of observed breast cancer cases to the number expected by the IBIS/Tyrer-Cuzick model (O/E; calculated as the sum of cumulative hazards). Differential discrimination was tested for by self-reported race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, Asian or Pacific Islander, and American Indian or Alaskan Native) using Cox regression. Exploratory analyses, including simulation of a protective single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP), rs140068132 at 6q25, were performed.

RESULTS

During follow-up (median 18.9 years, maximum 23.4 years), 6783 breast cancer cases occurred among 90,967 women. IBIS/Tyrer-Cuzick was well calibrated overall (O/E ratio = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.93-0.97) and in most racial/ethnic groups, but overestimated risk for Hispanic women (O/E ratio = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.62-0.90). Discrimination did not differ by race/ethnicity. Exploratory simulation of the protective SNP suggested improved IBIS/Tyrer-Cuzick calibration for Hispanic women (O/E ratio = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66-0.96).

CONCLUSIONS

The IBIS/Tyrer-Cuzick model is well calibrated for several racial/ethnic groups over 2 decades of follow-up. Studies that incorporate genetic and other risk factors, particularly among Hispanic women, are essential to improve breast cancer-risk prediction.

Development and pilot of an online, personalized risk assessment tool for a breast cancer precision medicine trial

Breast cancer risk reduction has been validated by large-scale clinical trials, but uptake remains low. A risk communication tool could provide personalized risk-reduction information for high-risk women. A low-literacy-friendly, visual, and personalized tool was designed as part of the Women Informed to Screen Depending On Measures of risk (WISDOM) study. The tool integrates genetic, polygenic, and lifestyle factors, and quantifies the risk-reduction from undertaking medication and lifestyle interventions. The development and design process utilized feedback from clinicians, decision-making scientists, software engineers, and patient advocates. We piloted the tool with 17 study participants, collecting quantitative and qualitative feedback. Overall, participants felt they better understood their personalized breast cancer risk, were motivated to reduce their risk, and considered lifestyle interventions. The tool will be used to evaluate whether risk-based screening leads to more informed decisions and higher uptake of risk-reduction interventions among those most likely to benefit.

Automated percent mammographic density, mammographic texture variation, and risk of breast cancer: a nested case-control study

Percent mammographic density (PMD) is a strong breast cancer risk factor, however, other mammographic features, such as V, the standard deviation (SD) of pixel intensity, may be associated with risk. We assessed whether PMD, automated PMD (APD), and V, yielded independent associations with breast cancer risk. We included 1900 breast cancer cases and 3921 matched controls from the Nurses' Health Study (NHS) and the NHSII. Using digitized film mammograms, we estimated PMD using a computer-assisted thresholding technique. APD and V were determined using an automated computer algorithm. We used logistic regression to generate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Median time from mammogram to diagnosis was 4.1 years (interquartile range: 1.6-6.8 years). PMD (OR per SD:1.52, 95% CI: 1.42, 1.63), APD (OR per SD:1.32, 95% CI: 1.24, 1.41), and V (OR per SD:1.32, 95% CI: 1.24, 1.40) were positively associated with breast cancer risk. Associations for APD were attenuated but remained statistically significant after mutual adjustment for PMD or V. Women in the highest quartile of both APD and V (OR vs Q1/Q1: 2.49, 95% CI: 2.02, 3.06), or PMD and V (OR vs Q1/Q1: 3.57, 95% CI: 2.79, 4.58) had increased breast cancer risk. An automated method of PMD assessment is feasible and yields similar, but somewhat weaker, estimates to a manual measure. PMD, APD and V are each independently, positively associated with breast cancer risk. Women with dense breasts and greater texture variation are at the highest relative risk of breast cancer.

Extending screening intervals for women at low risk of breast cancer: do they find it acceptable?

Background

Trials of risk estimation in breast cancer screening programmes, in order to identify women at higher risk and offer extra screening/preventive measures, are ongoing. It may also be feasible to introduce less frequent screening for women at low-risk of breast cancer. This study aimed to establish views of women at low-risk of breast cancer regarding the acceptability of extending breast screening intervals for low-risk women beyond 3 y.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were used to explore views of low-risk women, where “low-risk” was defined as less than 2% estimated 10-year risk of breast cancer aged > 46 years. Low-risk women were identified via the BC-Predict study, where following routine screening, women were given their 10-year risk of breast cancer by letter, along with additional information explaining breast cancer risk factors. To gain diversity of views, purposive sampling by ethnicity and socioeconomic background was used to recruit women. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.

Results

Twenty-three women participated in individual interviews. Three themes are reported: (1) A good opportunity to receive risk estimation, where women found it worthwhile to receive a low-risk result although some were surprised if expecting a higher risk result; (2) Multi-faceted acceptability of extended screening intervals, with reactions to less frequent screening dependent on whether women were confident in being low-risk status and current safety evidence, (3) Passive approval versus informed choice, highlighting that women found it difficult to consider choosing less frequent screening without professionals’ recommendations, as they generally viewed attending breast screening as positive.

Conclusions

Risk assessment and receiving a low-risk of breast cancer is acceptable although, further research is required with more diverse samples of women. Any recommendation of less frequent screening in this risk group should be evidence-based in order to be acceptable. Communication needs to be carefully developed, with a focus on ensuring informed choice, prior to trialling any extended screening recommendations in future studies.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-021-08347-w.

Characterization of alternative splicing events and prognostic signatures in breast cancer

Background

Breast cancer (BRCA) is one of the most common cancers worldwide. Abnormal alternative splicing (AS) frequently observed in cancers. This study aims to demonstrate AS events and signatures that might serve as prognostic indicators for BRCA.

Methods

Original data for all seven types of splice events were obtained from TCGA SpliceSeq database. RNA-seq and clinical data of BRCA cohorts were downloaded from TCGA database. Survival-associated AS events in BRCA were analyzed by univariate COX proportional hazards regression model. Prognostic signatures were constructed for prognosis prediction in patients with BRCA based on survival-associated AS events. Pearson correlation analysis was performed to measure the correlation between the expression of splicing factors (SFs) and the percent spliced in (PSI) values of AS events. Gene ontology (GO) and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) were conducted to demonstrate pathways in which survival-associated AS event is enriched.

Results

A total of 45,421 AS events in 21,232 genes were identified. Among them, 1121 AS events in 931 genes significantly correlated with survival for BRCA. The established AS prognostic signatures of seven types could accurately predict BRCA prognosis. The comprehensive AS signature could serve as independent prognostic factor for BRCA. A SF-AS regulatory network was therefore established based on the correlation between the expression levels of SFs and PSI values of AS events.

Conclusions

This study revealed survival-associated AS events and signatures that may help predict the survival outcomes of patients with BRCA. Additionally, the constructed SF-AS networks in BRCA can reveal the underlying regulatory mechanisms in BRCA.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-021-08305-6.

Management of breast lesions seen on US images: dual-model radiomics including shear-wave elastography may match performance of expert radiologists

PURPOSE

To develop a nomogram incorporating B-mode ultrasound (BMUS) and shear-wave elastography (SWE) radiomics to predict malignant status of breast lesions seen on US non-invasively.

METHODS

Data on 278 consecutive patients from Hospital #1 (training cohort) and 123 cases from Hospital #2 (external validation cohort) referred for breast US with subsequent histopathologic analysis between May 2017 and October 2019 were retrospectively collected. Using their BMUS and SWE images, we built a radiomics nomogram to improve radiology workflow for management of breast lesions. The performance of the algorithm was compared with a consensus of three ACR BI-RADS committee experts and four individual radiologists, all of whom interpreted breast US images in clinical practice.

RESULTS

Twelve features from BMUS and three from SWE were selected finally to construct the respective radiomic signature. The nomogram based on the dual-modal US radiomics achieved good diagnostic performance in the training (AUC 0.96; 95% confidence intervals [CI], 0.94-0.98) and the validation set (AUC 0.92; 95% CI, 0.87-0.97). For the 123 test lesions, the algorithm achieved 105 of 123 (85%) accuracy, comparable to the expert consensus (104 of 123 [85%], P =  0.86) and four individual radiologists (93, 99, 95 and 97 of 123, with P value of 0.05, 0.31, 0.10 and 0.18 respectively). Furthermore, the model also performed well in the BI-RADS 4 and 5 categories.

CONCLUSIONS

Performance of a dual-model US radiomics nomogram based on SWE for breast lesion classification may comparable to that of expert radiologists who used ACR BI-RADS guideline.

Distribution of Estimated Lifetime Breast Cancer Risk Among Women Undergoing Screening Mammography

OBJECTIVE. Supplemental screening breast MRI is recommended for women with an estimated lifetime risk of breast cancer of greater than 20-25%. The performance of risk prediction models varies for each individual and across groups of women. The present study investigates the concordance of three breast cancer risk prediction models among women presenting for screening mammography. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. In this prospective study, we calculated the estimated lifetime risk of breast cancer using the modified Gail, Tyrer-Cuzick version 7, and BRCAPRO models for each woman who presented for screening mammography. Per American Cancer Society guidelines, for each woman the risk was categorized as less than 20% or 20% or greater as well as less than 25% or 25% or greater with use of each model. Venn diagrams were constructed to evaluate concordance across models. The McNemar test was used to test differences in risk group allocations between models, with p ≤ .05 considered to denote statistical significance. RESULTS. Of 3503 screening mammography patients who underwent risk stratification, 3219 (91.9%) were eligible for risk estimation using all three models. Using at least one model, 440 (13.7%) women had a lifetime risk of 20% or greater, including 390 women (12.1%) according to the Tyrer-Cuzick version 7 model, 18 (0.6%) according to the BRCAPRO model, and 141 (4.4%) according to the modified Gail model. Six women (0.2%) had a risk of 20% or greater according to all three models. Women were significantly more likely to be classified as having a high lifetime breast cancer risk by the Tyrer-Cuzick version 7 model compared with the modified Gail model, with thresholds of 20% or greater (odds ratio, 6.4; 95% CI, 4.7-8.7) or 25% or greater (odds ratio, 7.4; 95% CI, 4.7-11.9) used for both models. CONCLUSION. To identify women with a high lifetime breast cancer risk, practices should use estimates of lifetime breast cancer risk derived from multiple risk prediction models.

External Validation of a Deep Learning Model for Predicting Mammographic Breast Density in Routine Clinical Practice

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Federal legislation requires patient notification of dense mammographic breast tissue because increased density is a marker of breast cancer risk and can limit the sensitivity of mammography. As previously described, we clinically implemented our deep learning model at the academic breast imaging practice where the model was developed with high clinical acceptance. Our objective was to externally validate our deep learning model on radiologist breast density assessments in a community breast imaging practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Our deep learning model was implemented at a dedicated breast imaging practice staffed by both academic and community breast imaging radiologists in October 2018. Deep learning model assessment of mammographic breast density was presented to the radiologist during routine clinical practice at the time of mammogram interpretation. We identified 2174 consecutive screening mammograms after implementation of the deep learning model. Radiologist agreement with the model's assessment was measured and compared across radiologist groups.

RESULTS

Both academic and community radiologists had high clinical acceptance of the deep learning model's density prediction, with 94.9% (academic) and 90.7% (community) acceptance for dense versus nondense categories (p < 0.001). The proportion of mammograms assessed as dense by all radiologists decreased from 47.0% before deep learning model implementation to 41.0% after deep learning model implementation (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Our deep learning model had a high clinical acceptance rate among both academic and community radiologists and reduced the proportion of mammograms assessed as dense. This is an important step to validating our deep learning model prior to potential widespread implementation.

Assessing Risk of Breast Cancer: A Review of Risk Prediction Models

Accurate and individualized breast cancer risk assessment can be used to guide personalized screening and prevention recommendations. Existing risk prediction models use genetic and nongenetic risk factors to provide an estimate of a woman's breast cancer risk and/or the likelihood that she has a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. Each model is best suited for specific clinical scenarios and may have limited applicability in certain types of patients. For example, the Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool, which identifies women who would benefit from chemoprevention, is readily accessible and user-friendly but cannot be used in women under 35 years of age or those with prior breast cancer or lobular carcinoma in situ. Emerging research on deep learning-based artificial intelligence (AI) models suggests that mammographic images contain risk indicators that could be used to strengthen existing risk prediction models. This article reviews breast cancer risk factors, describes the appropriate use, strengths, and limitations of each risk prediction model, and discusses the emerging role of AI for risk assessment.

Polygenic hazard score is associated with prostate cancer in multi-ethnic populations

Genetic models for cancer have been evaluated using almost exclusively European data, which could exacerbate health disparities. A polygenic hazard score (PHS1) is associated with age at prostate cancer diagnosis and improves screening accuracy in Europeans. Here, we evaluate performance of PHS2 (PHS1, adapted for OncoArray) in a multi-ethnic dataset of 80,491 men (49,916 cases, 30,575 controls). PHS2 is associated with age at diagnosis of any and aggressive (Gleason score ≥ 7, stage T3-T4, PSA ≥ 10 ng/mL, or nodal/distant metastasis) cancer and prostate-cancer-specific death. Associations with cancer are significant within European (n = 71,856), Asian (n = 2,382), and African (n = 6,253) genetic ancestries (p < 10-180). Comparing the 80th/20th PHS2 percentiles, hazard ratios for prostate cancer, aggressive cancer, and prostate-cancer-specific death are 5.32, 5.88, and 5.68, respectively. Within European, Asian, and African ancestries, hazard ratios for prostate cancer are: 5.54, 4.49, and 2.54, respectively. PHS2 risk-stratifies men for any, aggressive, and fatal prostate cancer in a multi-ethnic dataset.

Comparative validation of the BOADICEA and Tyrer-Cuzick breast cancer risk models incorporating classical risk factors and polygenic risk in a population-based prospective cohort of women of European ancestry

BACKGROUND

The Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA) and the Tyrer-Cuzick breast cancer risk prediction models are commonly used in clinical practice and have recently been extended to include polygenic risk scores (PRS). In addition, BOADICEA has also been extended to include reproductive and lifestyle factors, which were already part of Tyrer-Cuzick model. We conducted a comparative prospective validation of these models after incorporating the recently developed 313-variant PRS.

METHODS

Calibration and discrimination of 5-year absolute risk was assessed in a nested case-control sample of 1337 women of European ancestry (619 incident breast cancer cases) aged 23-75 years from the Generations Study.

RESULTS

The extended BOADICEA model with reproductive/lifestyle factors and PRS was well calibrated across risk deciles; expected-to-observed ratio (E/O) at the highest risk decile :0.97 (95 % CI 0.51 - 1.86) for women younger than 50 years and 1.09 (0.66 - 1.80) for women 50 years or older. Adding reproductive/lifestyle factors and PRS to the BOADICEA model improved discrimination modestly in younger women (area under the curve (AUC) 69.7 % vs. 69.1%) and substantially in older women (AUC 64.6 % vs. 56.8%). The Tyrer-Cuzick model with PRS showed evidence of overestimation at the highest risk decile: E/O = 1.54(0.81 - 2.92) for younger and 1.73 (1.03 - 2.90) for older women.

CONCLUSION

The extended BOADICEA model identified women in a European-ancestry population at elevated breast cancer risk more accurately than the Tyrer-Cuzick model with PRS. With the increasing availability of PRS, these analyses can inform choice of risk models incorporating PRS for risk stratified breast cancer prevention among women of European ancestry.

Performance of Breast Cancer Risk-Assessment Models in a Large Mammography Cohort

BACKGROUND

Several breast cancer risk-assessment models exist. Few studies have evaluated predictive accuracy of multiple models in large screening populations.

METHODS

We evaluated the performance of the BRCAPRO, Gail, Claus, Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC), and Tyrer-Cuzick models in predicting risk of breast cancer over 6 years among 35 921 women aged 40-84 years who underwent mammography screening at Newton-Wellesley Hospital from 2007 to 2009. We assessed model discrimination using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and assessed calibration by comparing the ratio of observed-to-expected (O/E) cases. We calculated the square root of the Brier score and positive and negative predictive values of each model.

RESULTS

Our results confirmed the good calibration and comparable moderate discrimination of the BRCAPRO, Gail, Tyrer-Cuzick, and BCSC models. The Gail model had slightly better O/E ratio and AUC (O/E = 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.91 to 1.06, AUC = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.61 to 0.65) compared with BRCAPRO (O/E = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.88 to 1.02, AUC = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.59 to 0.63) and Tyrer-Cuzick (version 8, O/E = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.79 to 0.91, AUC = 0.62, 95% 0.60 to 0.64) in the full study population, and the BCSC model had the highest AUC among women with available breast density information (O/E = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.89 to 1.05, AUC = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.62 to 0.66). All models had poorer predictive accuracy for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive and triple-negative breast cancers than hormone receptor positive human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative breast cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

In a large cohort of patients undergoing mammography screening, existing risk prediction models had similar, moderate predictive accuracy and good calibration overall. Models that incorporate additional genetic and nongenetic risk factors and estimate risk of tumor subtypes may further improve breast cancer risk prediction.

Association of mammographic density measures and breast cancer "intrinsic" molecular subtypes

PURPOSE

We evaluated the association of percent mammographic density (PMD), absolute dense area (DA), and non-dense area (NDA) with risk of "intrinsic" molecular breast cancer (BC) subtypes.

METHODS

We pooled 3492 invasive BC and 10,148 controls across six studies with density measures from prediagnostic, digitized film-screen mammograms. We classified BC tumors into subtypes [63% Luminal A, 21% Luminal B, 5% HER2 expressing, and 11% as triple negative (TN)] using information on estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), and tumor grade. We used polytomous logistic regression to calculate odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for density measures (per SD) across the subtypes compared to controls, adjusting for age, body mass index and study, and examined differences by age group.

RESULTS

All density measures were similarly associated with BC risk across subtypes. Significant interaction of PMD by age (P = 0.001) was observed for Luminal A tumors, with stronger effect sizes seen for younger women < 45 years (OR = 1.69 per SD PMD) relative to women of older ages (OR = 1.53, ages 65-74, OR = 1.44 ages 75 +). Similar but opposite trends were seen for NDA by age for risk of Luminal A: risk for women: < 45 years (OR = 0.71 per SD NDA) was lower than older women (OR = 0.83 and OR = 0.84 for ages 65-74 and 75 + , respectively) (P < 0.001). Although not significant, similar patterns of associations were seen by age for TN cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

Mammographic density measures were associated with risk of all "intrinsic" molecular subtypes. However, findings of significant interactions between age and density measures may have implications for subtype-specific risk models.

Comparing 5-Year and Lifetime Risks of Breast Cancer using the Prospective Family Study Cohort

BACKGROUND

Clinical guidelines often use predicted lifetime risk from birth to define criteria for making decisions regarding breast cancer screening rather than thresholds based on absolute 5-year risk from current age.

METHODS

We used the Prospective Family Cohort Study of 14 657 women without breast cancer at baseline in which, during a median follow-up of 10 years, 482 women were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer. We examined the performances of the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study (IBIS) and Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA) risk models when using the alternative thresholds by comparing predictions based on 5-year risk with those based on lifetime risk from birth and remaining lifetime risk. All statistical tests were 2-sided.

RESULTS

Using IBIS, the areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curves were 0.66 (95% confidence interval = 0.63 to 0.68) and 0.56 (95% confidence interval = 0.54 to 0.59) for 5-year and lifetime risks, respectively (Pdiff < .001). For equivalent sensitivities, the 5-year incidence almost always had higher specificities than lifetime risk from birth. For women aged 20-39 years, 5-year risk performed better than lifetime risk from birth. For women aged 40 years or older, receiver-operating characteristic curves were similar for 5-year and lifetime IBIS risk from birth. Classifications based on remaining lifetime risk were inferior to 5-year risk estimates. Results were similar using BOADICEA.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis shows that risk stratification using clinical models will likely be more accurate when based on predicted 5-year risk compared with risks based on predicted lifetime and remaining lifetime, particularly for women aged 20-39 years.

Simplified Breast Risk Tool Integrating Questionnaire Risk Factors, Mammographic Density, and Polygenic Risk Score: Development and Validation

BACKGROUND

Clinical use of breast cancer risk prediction requires simplified models. We evaluate a simplified version of the validated Rosner-Colditz model and add percent mammographic density (MD) and polygenic risk score (PRS), to assess performance from ages 45-74. We validate using the Mayo Mammography Health Study (MMHS).

METHODS

We derived the model in the Nurses' Health Study (NHS) based on: MD, 77 SNP PRS and a questionnaire score (QS; lifestyle and reproductive factors). A total of 2,799 invasive breast cancer cases were diagnosed from 1990-2000. MD (using Cumulus software) and PRS were assessed in a nested case-control study. We assess model performance using this case-control dataset and evaluate 10-year absolute breast cancer risk. The prospective MMHS validation dataset includes 21.8% of women age <50, and 434 incident cases identified over 10 years of follow-up.

RESULTS

In the NHS, MD has the highest odds ratio (OR) for 10-year risk prediction: OR_{per SD} = 1.48 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.31-1.68], followed by PRS, OR_{per SD} = 1.37 (95% CI: 1.21-1.55) and QS, OR_{per SD} = 1.25 (95% CI: 1.11-1.41). In MMHS, the AUC adjusted for age + MD + QS 0.650; for age + MD + QS + PRS 0.687, and the NRI was 6% in cases and 16% in controls.

CONCLUSION

A simplified assessment of QS, MD, and PRS performs consistently to discriminate those at high 10-year breast cancer risk.

IMPACT

This simplified model provides accurate estimation of 10-year risk of invasive breast cancer that can be used in a clinical setting to identify women who may benefit from chemopreventive intervention.See related commentary by Tehranifar et al., p. 587.

Automated Breast Cancer Detection in Digital Mammograms of Various Densities via Deep Learning

Mammography plays an important role in screening breast cancer among females, and artificial intelligence has enabled the automated detection of diseases on medical images. This study aimed to develop a deep learning model detecting breast cancer in digital mammograms of various densities and to evaluate the model performance compared to previous studies. From 1501 subjects who underwent digital mammography between February 2007 and May 2015, craniocaudal and mediolateral view mammograms were included and concatenated for each breast, ultimately producing 3002 merged images. Two convolutional neural networks were trained to detect any malignant lesion on the merged images. The performances were tested using 301 merged images from 284 subjects and compared to a meta-analysis including 12 previous deep learning studies. The mean area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) for detecting breast cancer in each merged mammogram was 0.952 ± 0.005 by DenseNet-169 and 0.954 ± 0.020 by EfficientNet-B5, respectively. The performance for malignancy detection decreased as breast density increased (density A, mean AUC = 0.984 vs. density D, mean AUC = 0.902 by DenseNet-169). When patients’ age was used as a covariate for malignancy detection, the performance showed little change (mean AUC, 0.953 ± 0.005). The mean sensitivity and specificity of the DenseNet-169 (87 and 88%, respectively) surpassed the mean values (81 and 82%, respectively) obtained in a meta-analysis. Deep learning would work efficiently in screening breast cancer in digital mammograms of various densities, which could be maximized in breasts with lower parenchyma density.

[First results of a breast cancer risk assessment and management consultation]

INTRODUCTION

In France, participation in the organized breast cancer screening program remains insufficient. A personalized approach adapted to the risk factors for breast cancer (RBC) should make screening more efficient. A RBC evaluation consultation would therefore make it possible to personalize this screening. Here we report our initial experience.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

This is a prospective study on women who were seen at the RBC evaluation consultation and analyzing: their profile, their risk assessed according to Tyrer Cuzick model (TC)±Mammorisk© (MMR), the existence of an indication of oncogenetic consultation (Eisinger and Manchester score), their satisfaction and the recommended monitoring.

RESULTS

Among the women who had had a TCS and/or MMR evaluation of SCR (n=153), 76 (50%) had a high risk (n=67) or a very high risk (n=9). Almost half (47%) had a possible (15%) or certain (32%) indication to an oncogenetic consultation. Regarding this consultation, 98% of women were satisfied or very satisfied. In total, 60% of women had a change in screening methods.

CONCLUSION

This RBC evaluation consultation satisfies women and for a majority of them, modifies their methods of breast cancer screening.

Breast cancer screening for women at high risk: review of current guidelines from leading specialty societies

The purpose of this article is to overview the existing breast cancer screening guidelines for women at high risk from world-leading specialty societies. Accumulation of evidence and development of accessible genetic testing strategies have changed the idea of breast cancer screening for high-risk women. Personalized tailor-made screening adjusted for risk factors has been conducted in accordance with guidelines. The use of imaging modalities other than mammography including contrast-enhanced MRI and other various strategies for improving screening are discussed. The present review also mentions the existing challenges in high-risk screening and the latest information based on two large-scale studies.

Comparative Validation of Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Models and Projections for Future Risk Stratification

BACKGROUND

External validation of risk models is critical for risk-stratified breast cancer prevention. We used the Individualized Coherent Absolute Risk Estimation (iCARE) as a flexible tool for risk model development and comparative model validation and to make projections for population risk stratification.

METHODS

Performance of two recently developed models, one based on the Breast and Prostate Cancer Cohort Consortium analysis (iCARE-BPC3) and another based on a literature review (iCARE-Lit), were compared with two established models (Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool and International Breast Cancer Intervention Study Model) based on classical risk factors in a UK-based cohort of 64 874 white non-Hispanic women (863 patients) age 35-74 years. Risk projections in a target population of US white non-Hispanic women age 50-70 years assessed potential improvements in risk stratification by adding mammographic breast density (MD) and polygenic risk score (PRS).

RESULTS

The best calibrated models were iCARE-Lit (expected to observed number of cases [E/O] = 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.87 to 1.11) for women younger than 50 years, and iCARE-BPC3 (E/O = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.93 to 1.09) for women 50 years or older. Risk projections using iCARE-BPC3 indicated classical risk factors can identify approximately 500 000 women at moderate to high risk (>3% 5-year risk) in the target population. Addition of MD and a 313-variant PRS is expected to increase this number to approximately 3.5 million women, and among them, approximately 153 000 are expected to develop invasive breast cancer within 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

iCARE models based on classical risk factors perform similarly to or better than BCRAT or IBIS in white non-Hispanic women. Addition of MD and PRS can lead to substantial improvements in risk stratification. However, these integrated models require independent prospective validation before broad clinical applications.

Considerations When Using Breast Cancer Risk Models for Women with Negative BRCA1/BRCA2 Mutation Results

The performance of breast cancer risk models for women with a family history but negative BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutation test results is uncertain. We calculated the cumulative 10-year invasive breast cancer risk at cohort entry for 14 657 unaffected women (96.1% had an affected relative) not known to carry BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations at baseline using three pedigree-based models (Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm, BRCAPRO, and International Breast Cancer Intervention Study). During follow-up, 482 women were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer. Mutation testing was conducted independent of incident cancers. All models underpredicted risk by 26.3%-56.7% for women who tested negative but whose relatives had not been tested (n = 1363; 63 breast cancers). Although replication studies with larger sample sizes are needed, until these models are recalibrated for women who test negative and have no relatives tested, caution should be used when considering changing the breast cancer risk management intensity of such women based on risk estimates from these models.

Chronic non-communicable disease risk calculators - An overview, part I

This review identifies the different risk assessment tools that stratify the individual's risk of four of the eight leading causes of death in women: breast cancer, lung cancer, colorectal cancer and osteoporosis. It will be followed by the publication of a second paper that summarizes the risk assessment tools for the other four leading causes of death (myocardial infarction, stroke, diabetes mellitus type 2 and dementia). The different tools were compared by their use of different variables and validation criteria. To corroborate the validation process, validation study papers were considered for each risk assessment tool. Four tables, one for each illness, were designed. The tables provide an outline for each risk assessment tool, which includes its inventor/company, required variables, advantages, disadvantages and validity. These tables simplify the comparison of the different tools and enable the identification of the most suitable one for each patient.

Radiologic Technologist and Radiologist Knowledge Gaps about Breast Density Revealed by an Online Continuing Education Course

OBJECTIVE

We sought to identify provider knowledge gaps and their predictors, as revealed by a breast density continuing education course marketed to the radiology community.

METHODS

The course, continually available online during the study period of November 2, 2016 and December 31, 2018, includes demographics collection; a monograph on breast density, breast cancer risk, and screening; and a post-test. Four post-test questions were modified during the study period, resulting in different sample sizes pre- and postmodification. Multiple logistic regression was used to identify predictors of knowledge gaps (defined as > 25% of responses incorrect).

RESULTS

Of 1649 analyzable registrants, 1363 (82.7%) were radiologic technologists, 226 (13.7%) were physicians, and 60 (3.6%) were other nonphysicians; over 90% of physicians and over 90% of technologists/nonphysicians specialized in radiology. Sixteen of 49 physicians (32.7%) and 80/233 (34.3%) technologists/nonphysicians mistakenly thought the Gail model should be used to determine "high-risk" status for recommending MRI or genetic testing. Ninety-nine of 226 (43.8%) physicians and 682/1423 (47.9%) technologists/nonphysicians misunderstood the inverse relationship between increasing age and lifetime breast cancer risk. Fifty-two of 166 (31.3%) physicians and 549/1151 (47.7%) technologists/nonphysicians were unaware that MRI should be recommended for women with a family history of BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations. Tomosynthesis effectiveness was overestimated, with 18/60 (30.0%) physicians and 95/272 (34.9%) technologists/nonphysicians believing sensitivity nearly equaled MRI. Knowledge gaps were more common in technologists/nonphysicians.

CONCLUSIONS

Important knowledge gaps about breast density, breast cancer risk assessment, and screening exist among radiologic technologists and radiologists. Continued education efforts may improve appropriate breast cancer screening recommendations.

Artificial Intelligence: A Primer for Breast Imaging Radiologists

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a branch of computer science dedicated to developing computer algorithms that emulate intelligent human behavior. Subfields of AI include machine learning and deep learning. Advances in AI technologies have led to techniques that could increase breast cancer detection, improve clinical efficiency in breast imaging practices, and guide decision-making regarding screening and prevention strategies. This article reviews key terminology and concepts, discusses common AI models and methods to validate and evaluate these models, describes emerging AI applications in breast imaging, and outlines challenges and future directions. Familiarity with AI terminology, concepts, methods, and applications is essential for breast imaging radiologists to critically evaluate these emerging technologies, recognize their strengths and limitations, and ultimately ensure optimal patient care.

Key steps for effective breast cancer prevention

Despite decades of laboratory, epidemiological and clinical research, breast cancer incidence continues to rise. Breast cancer remains the leading cancer-related cause of disease burden for women, affecting one in 20 globally and as many as one in eight in high-income countries. Reducing breast cancer incidence will likely require both a population-based approach of reducing exposure to modifiable risk factors and a precision-prevention approach of identifying women at increased risk and targeting them for specific interventions, such as risk-reducing medication. We already have the capacity to estimate an individual woman's breast cancer risk using validated risk assessment models, and the accuracy of these models is likely to continue to improve over time, particularly with inclusion of newer risk factors, such as polygenic risk and mammographic density. Evidence-based risk-reducing medications are cheap, widely available and recommended by professional health bodies; however, widespread implementation of these has proven challenging. The barriers to uptake of, and adherence to, current medications will need to be considered as we deepen our understanding of breast cancer initiation and begin developing and testing novel preventives.

Breast Cancer Population Attributable Risk Proportions Associated with Body Mass Index and Breast Density by Race/Ethnicity and Menopausal Status

BACKGROUND

Overweight/obesity and dense breasts are strong breast cancer risk factors whose prevalences vary by race/ethnicity. The breast cancer population attributable risk proportions (PARP) explained by these factors across racial/ethnic groups are unknown.

METHODS

We analyzed data collected from 3,786,802 mammography examinations (1,071,653 women) in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, associated with 21,253 invasive breast cancers during a median of 5.2 years follow-up. HRs for body mass index (BMI) and breast density, adjusted for age and registry were estimated using separate Cox regression models by race/ethnicity (White, Black, Hispanic, Asian) and menopausal status. HRs were combined with observed risk-factor proportions to calculate PARPs for shifting overweight/obese to normal BMI and shifting heterogeneously/extremely dense to scattered fibroglandular densities.

RESULTS

The prevalences and HRs for overweight/obesity and heterogeneously/extremely dense breasts varied across races/ethnicities and menopausal status. BMI PARPs were larger for postmenopausal versus premenopausal women (12.0%-28.3% vs. 1.0%-9.9%) and nearly double among postmenopausal Black women (28.3%) than other races/ethnicities (12.0%-15.4%). Breast density PARPs were larger for premenopausal versus postmenopausal women (23.9%-35.0% vs. 13.0%-16.7%) and lower among premenopausal Black women (23.9%) than other races/ethnicities (30.4%-35.0%). Postmenopausal density PARPs were similar across races/ethnicities (13.0%-16.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Overweight/obesity and dense breasts account for large proportions of breast cancers in White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian women despite large differences in risk-factor distributions.

IMPACT

Risk prediction models should consider how race/ethnicity interacts with BMI and breast density. Efforts to reduce BMI could have a large impact on breast cancer risk reduction, particularly among postmenopausal Black women.

Risk stratified breast cancer screening: UK healthcare policy decision-making stakeholders' views on a low-risk breast screening pathway

BACKGROUND

There is international interest in risk-stratification of breast screening programmes to allow women at higher risk to benefit from more frequent screening and chemoprevention. Risk-stratification also identifies women at low-risk who could be screened less frequently, as the harms of breast screening may outweigh benefits for this group. The present research aimed to elicit the views of national healthcare policy decision-makers regarding implementation of less frequent screening intervals for women at low-risk.

METHODS

Seventeen professionals were purposively recruited to ensure relevant professional group representation directly or indirectly associated with the UK National Screening Committee and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) clinical guidelines. Interviews were analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Three themes are reported: (1) producing the evidence defining low-risk, describing requirements preceding implementation; (2) the impact of risk stratification on women is complicated, focusing on gaining acceptability from women; and (3) practically implementing a low-risk pathway, where feasibility questions are highlighted.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, national healthcare policy decision-makers appear to believe that risk-stratified breast screening is acceptable, in principle. It will however be essential to address key obstacles prior to implementation in national programmes.

Breast cancer risk assessment and management programs: A practical guide

Breast cancer risk assessment continues to evolve as emerging knowledge of breast cancer risk drivers and modifiers enables better identification of high-risk women who may benefit from increased screening or targeted risk-reduction protocols. The ongoing development of breast cancer Risk Assessment and Management Programs (RAMPs) presents an opportunity to decrease breast cancer disease incidence with evidence-based interventions. The goal of this review was to provide a practical guide for providers seeking to establish or update a breast cancer risk assessment and management program. We outline genetic/familial, personal, reproductive, and lifestyle-related factors while discussing the incorporation of risk modeling for precise risk estimate personalization. We further describe the process for determining a risk management plan: information gathering, generation of a risk profile, and articulation and implementation of risk reduction. We also include an overview of clinical workflows in breast cancer management programs and underlines the logistics of establishing a program as well as general principles for guiding the formulation of an individualized risk management plan. We discuss practical considerations, such as clinic structure and operation, allocation of resources, and patient education. Other critical aspects of program design, including identification of the target population, delineation of the core components of the clinical experience, definition of provider roles, description of referral mechanisms, and the launching of a marketing plan are also addressed. The process of risk assessment is both anxiety-provoking and empowering for women at increased risk. New knowledge has enabled strategies to both understand the risk and control it through evidence-based risk management. These benefits can now be realized by an increasing number of unaffected, high-risk patients collaborating with risk management practitioners. Continuation of these efforts will lead to further progress in both risk stratification and risk management of women at elevated breast cancer risk in the near future.

Mammographic density and breast cancer screening

Mammographic density, which is determined by the relative amounts of fibroglandular tissue and fat in the breast, varies between women. Mammographic density is associated with a range of factors, including age and body mass index. The description of mammographic density has been transformed by the digitalization of mammography, which has allowed automation of the assessment of mammographic density, rather than using visual inspection by a radiologist. High mammographic density is important because it is associated with reduced sensitivity for the detection of breast cancer at the time of mammographic screening. High mammographic density is also associated with an elevated risk of developing breast cancer. Mammographic density appears to be on the causal pathway for some breast cancer risk factors, but not others. Mammographic density needs to be considered in the context of a woman's background risk of breast cancer. There is intense debate about the use of supplementary imaging for women with high mammographic density. Should supplementary imaging be used in women with high mammographic density and a clear mammogram? If so, what modalities of imaging should be used and in which women? Trials are underway to address the risks and benefits of supplementary imaging.

Relationship Between Breast Ultrasound Background Echotexture and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Background Parenchymal Enhancement and the Effect of Hormonal Status Thereon

We studied the relationship between breast ultrasound background echotexture (BET) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) and whether this relationship varied with hormonal status and amount of fibroglandular tissue (FGT) on MRI. Two hundred eighty-three Korean women (52.1 years; range = 27-79 years) with newly diagnosed primary breast cancer who underwent preoperative breast ultrasound and MRI were retrospectively studied. Background echotexture, BPE, and FGT were classified into 4 categories, and age, menopausal status, menstrual cycle regularity, and menstrual cycle stage at MRI were recorded. Background echotexture and BPE relationship was assessed overall, and in menopausal, FGT, menstrual cycle regularity, and menstrual cycle stage subgroups. Background echotexture and BPE correlated in women overall, and menopausal, FGT, and menstrual cycle subgroups and those in the first half of the cycle (all P < 0.001). Background echotexture reflects BPE, regardless of menopausal status, menstrual cycle regularity, and FGT and may be a biomarker of breast cancer risk.

Development and Validation of a Clinical Polygenic Risk Score to Predict Breast Cancer Risk

PURPOSE

Women with a family history of breast cancer are frequently referred for hereditary cancer genetic testing, yet < 10% are found to have pathogenic variants in known breast cancer susceptibility genes. Large-scale genotyping studies have identified common variants (primarily single-nucleotide polymorphisms [SNPs]) with individually modest breast cancer risk that, in aggregate, account for considerable breast cancer susceptibility. Here, we describe the development and empirical validation of an SNP-based polygenic breast cancer risk score.

METHODS

A panel of 94 SNPs was examined for association with breast cancer in women of European ancestry undergoing hereditary cancer genetic testing and negative for pathogenic variants in breast cancer susceptibility genes. Candidate polygenic risk scores (PRSs) as predictors of personal breast cancer history were developed through multivariable logistic regression models adjusted for age, cancer history, and ancestry. An optimized PRS was validated in 2 independent cohorts (n = 13,174; n = 141,160).

RESULTS

Within the training cohort (n = 24,259), 4,291 women (18%) had a personal history of breast cancer and 8,725 women (36%) reported breast cancer in a first-degree relative. The optimized PRS included 86 variants and was highly predictive of breast cancer status in both validation cohorts (P = 6.4 × 10-66; P < 10-325). The odds ratio (OR) per unit standard deviation was consistent between validations (OR, 1.45 [95% CI, 1.39 to 1.52]; OR 1.47 [95% CI, 1.45 to 1.49]). In a direct comparison, the 86-SNP PRS outperformed a previously described PRS of 77 SNPs.

CONCLUSION

The validation and implementation of a PRS for women without pathogenic variants in known breast cancer susceptibility genes offers potential for risk stratification to guide surveillance recommendations.

Breast Cancer Risk Assessment: A Step-Wise Approach for Primary Care Providers on the Front Lines of Shared Decision Making

Breast cancer-screening guidelines increasingly recommend that clinicians perform a risk assessment for breast cancer to inform shared decision making for screening. Precision medicine is quickly becoming the preferred approach to cancer screening, with the aim of increased surveillance in high-risk women, while sparing lower-risk women the burden of unnecessary imaging. Risk assessment also informs clinical care by refining screening recommendations for younger women, identifying women who should be referred to genetic counseling, and identifying candidates for risk-reducing medications. Several breast cancer risk-assessment models are currently available to help clinicians categorize a woman's risk for breast cancer. However, choosing the appropriate model for a given patient requires a working knowledge of the strengths, weaknesses, and performance characteristics of each. The aim of this article is to provide a stepwise approach for clinicians to assess an individual woman's risk for breast cancer and describe the features, appropriate use, and performance characteristics of commonly encountered risk-prediction models. This approach will help primary care providers engage in shared decision making by efficiently generating an accurate risk assessment and make clear, evidence-based screening and prevention recommendations that are appropriately matched to a woman's risk for breast cancer.

Genetic Testing and Screening Recommendations for Patients with Hereditary Breast Cancer

Professionals who specialize in breast imaging may be the first to initiate the conversation about genetic counseling with patients who have a diagnosis of premenopausal breast cancer or a strong family history of breast and ovarian cancer. Commercial genetic testing panels have gained popularity and have become more affordable in recent years. Therefore, it is imperative for radiologists to be able to provide counseling and to identify those patients who should be referred for genetic testing. The authors review the process of genetic counseling and the associated screening recommendations for patients at high and moderate risk. Ultimately, genetic test results enable appropriate patient-specific screening, which allows improvement of overall survival by early detection and timely treatment. The authors discuss pretest counseling, which involves the use of various breast cancer risk assessment tools such as the Gail and Tyrer-Cuzick models. The most common high- and moderate-risk gene mutations associated with breast cancer are also reviewed. In addition to BRCA1 and BRCA2, several high-risk genes, including TP53, PTEN, CDH1, and STK11, are discussed. Moderate-risk genes include ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2. The imaging appearances of breast cancer typically associated with each gene mutation, as well as the other associated cancers, are described. ^©RSNA, 2020 See discussion on this article by Butler (pp 937-940).

Heterogenous Effect of Risk Factors on Breast Cancer across the Breast Density Categories in a Korean Screening Population

We evaluated the heterogeneity of the effect of known risk factors on breast cancer development based on breast density by using the Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). In total, 4,898,880 women, aged 40-74 years, who participated in the national breast cancer screening program in 2009-2010 were followed up to December 2018. Increased age showed a heterogeneous association with breast cancer (1-year hazard ratio (HR) = 0.92, 1.00 (reference), 1.03, and 1.03 in women with BI-RADS density category 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively; P-heterogeneity < 0.001). More advanced age at menopause increased breast cancer risk in all BI-RADS categories. This was more prominent in women with BI-RADS density category 1 but less prominent in women in other BI-RADS categories (P-heterogeneity = 0.009). In postmenopausal women, a family history of breast cancer, body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m², and smoking showed a heterogeneous association with breast cancer across all BI-RADS categories. Other risk factors including age at menarche, menopause, hormone replacement therapy after menopause, oral contraceptive use, and alcohol consumption did not show a heterogeneous association with breast cancer across the BI-RADS categories. Several known risk factors of breast cancer had a heterogeneous effect on breast cancer development across breast density categories, especially in postmenopausal women.

Evaluation of LIBRA Software for Fully Automated Mammographic Density Assessment in Breast Cancer Risk Prediction

Background The associations of density measures from the publicly available Laboratory for Individualized Breast Radiodensity Assessment (LIBRA) software with breast cancer have primarily focused on estimates from the contralateral breast at the time of diagnosis. Purpose To evaluate LIBRA measures on mammograms obtained before breast cancer diagnosis and compare their performance to established density measures. Materials and Methods For this retrospective case-control study, full-field digital mammograms in for-processing (raw) and for-presentation (processed) formats were obtained (March 2008 to December 2011) in women who developed breast cancer an average of 2 years later and in age-matched control patients. LIBRA measures included absolute dense area and area percent density (PD) from both image formats. For comparison, dense area and PD were assessed by using the research software (Cumulus), and volumetric PD (VPD) and absolute dense volume were estimated with a commercially available software (Volpara). Density measures were compared by using Spearman correlation coefficients (r), and conditional logistic regression (odds ratios [ORs] and 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) was performed to examine the associations of density measures with breast cancer by adjusting for age and body mass index. Results Evaluated were 437 women diagnosed with breast cancer (median age, 62 years ± 17 [standard deviation]) and 1225 matched control patients (median age, 61 years ± 16). LIBRA PD showed strong correlations with Cumulus PD (r = 0.77-0.84) and Volpara VPD (r = 0.85-0.90) (P < .001 for both). For LIBRA, the strongest breast cancer association was observed for PD from processed images (OR, 1.3; 95% CI: 1.1, 1.5), although the PD association from raw images was not significantly different (OR, 1.2; 95% CI: 1.1, 1.4; P = .25). Slightly stronger breast cancer associations were seen for Cumulus PD (OR, 1.5; 95% CI: 1.3, 1.8; processed images; P = .01) and Volpara VPD (OR, 1.4; 95% CI: 1.2, 1.7; raw images; P = .004) compared with LIBRA measures. Conclusion Automated density measures provided by the Laboratory for Individualized Breast Radiodensity Assessment from raw and processed mammograms correlated with established area and volumetric density measures and showed comparable breast cancer associations. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

A case-control evaluation of 143 single nucleotide polymorphisms for breast cancer risk stratification with classical factors and mammographic density

Panels of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) stratify risk for breast cancer in women from the general population, but studies are needed assess their use in a fully comprehensive model including classical risk factors, mammographic density and more than 100 SNPs associated with breast cancer. A case-control study was designed (1,668 controls, 405 cases) in women aged 47-73 years attending routine screening in Manchester UK, and enrolled in a wider study to assess methods for risk assessment. Risk from classical questionnaire risk factors was assessed using the Tyrer-Cuzick model; mean percentage visual mammographic density was scored by two independent readers. DNA extracted from saliva was genotyped at selected SNPs using the OncoArray. A predefined polygenic risk score based on 143 SNPs was calculated (SNP143). The odds ratio (OR, and 95% confidence interval, CI) per interquartile range (IQ-OR) of SNP143 was estimated unadjusted and adjusted for Tyrer-Cuzick and breast density. Secondary analysis assessed risk by oestrogen receptor (ER) status. The primary polygenic risk score was well calibrated (O/E OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.86-1.34) and accuracy was retained after adjustment for Tyrer-Cuzick risk and mammographic density (IQ-OR unadjusted 2.12, 95% CI% 1.75-2.42; adjusted 2.06, 95% CI 1.75-2.42). SNP143 was a risk factor for ER+ and ER- breast cancer (adjusted IQ-OR, ER+ 2.11, 95% CI 1.78-2.51; ER- 1.81, 95% CI 1.16-2.84). In conclusion, polygenic risk scores based on a large number of SNPs improve risk stratification in combination with classical risk factors and mammographic density, and SNP143 was similarly predictive for ER-positive and ER-negative disease.

Knowledge of Potential Harms and Benefits of Tamoxifen among Women Considering Breast Cancer Preventive Therapy

Tamoxifen reduces breast cancer incidence in women at increased risk, but may cause side effects. We examined women's knowledge of tamoxifen's potential harms and benefits, and the extent to which knowledge reflects subjective judgments of awareness and decision quality. After a hospital appointment, 408 (55.7%) women at increased risk of breast cancer completed a survey assessing objective knowledge about the potential benefit (risk reduction) and harms (endometrial cancer, thromboembolic events, and menopausal side effects) of tamoxifen, and subjective tamoxifen knowledge and decisional quality. Two hundred fifty-eight (63.2%) completed a 3-month follow-up survey. Sixteen percent (15.7%) of participants recognized the potential benefit and three major harms of using tamoxifen. These women were more likely to have degree-level education [vs. below degree level; OR, 2.24; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.11-4.55] and good numeracy (vs. poor numeracy; OR, 5.91; 95% CI, 1.33-26.19). Tamoxifen uptake was higher in women who recognized all harms and benefits (vs. not recognizing; OR, 2.47; 95% CI, 0.94-6.54). Sixty-six percent (65.8%) of tamoxifen users were unaware of its potential benefit and harms. Most (87.1%) women reported feeling informed about tamoxifen, and subjective decisional quality was high [Mean (SD), 17.03 (1.87), out of 18]. Knowledge regarding the potential harms and benefit of tamoxifen is low in women considering prevention therapy, and they may need additional support to make informed decisions about tamoxifen preventive therapy.

Real-time, personalized medicine through wearable sensors and dynamic predictive modeling: a new paradigm for clinical medicine

Accurately predicting the onset and course of a disease in an individual is a major unmet challenge in medicine due to the complex and dynamic nature of disease progression. Continuous data from wearable technologies and biomarker data with a fine time resolution provide a unique opportunity to learn more about disease evolution and to usher in a new era of personalized and real-time medicine. Herein, we propose the potential of real-time, continuously measured physiological data as a noninvasive biomarker approach for detecting disease transitions, using allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HCT) patient care as an example. Additionally, we review a recent computational technique, the landscape dynamic network biomarker method, that uses biomarker data to identify transition states in disease progression and explore how to use it with both biomarker and physiological data for earlier detection of graft-versus-host disease specifically. Throughout, we argue that increased collaboration across multiple fields is essential to realizing the full potential of wearable and biomarker data in a new paradigm of personalized and real-time medicine.