Assessing breast cancer risk within the general screening population: developing a breast cancer risk model to identify higher risk women at mammographic screening

A Review of the Literature for Individualizing Women's Care Through Breast Cancer Risk Assessment

Breast cancer is well recognized as a leading type of cancer affecting women in the United States. Although breast cancer screening is well supported in the literature, there is a lack of clear agreement regarding which breast cancer risk calculating tools should be used to develop personalized screening regimens. In this review of 11 primary articles published from 2017 to 2022, we assess current evidence on breast cancer risk assessment in outpatient clinic and mammography settings and the pivotal role of health care providers in influencing patients' choices regarding individualized screenings. Risk assessment is strongly recommended by multiple clinical practice guidelines, yet there is inadequate evidence to endorse one risk assessment tool as best practice. Further research is needed to integrate risk assessment within the clinic workflow and screening encounters. Patient-centered communication and shared decision-making are critical components for managing each woman's perceived risk and objective risk for breast cancer.

Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tools for Stratifying Women into Risk Groups: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The benefits and harms of breast screening may be better balanced through a risk-stratified approach. We conducted a systematic review assessing the accuracy of questionnaire-based risk assessment tools for this purpose.

METHODS

Population: asymptomatic women aged ≥40 years; Intervention: questionnaire-based risk assessment tool (incorporating breast density and polygenic risk where available); Comparison: different tool applied to the same population; Primary outcome: breast cancer incidence; Scope: external validation studies identified from databases including Medline and Embase (period 1 January 2008-20 July 2021). We assessed calibration (goodness-of-fit) between expected and observed cancers and compared observed cancer rates by risk group. Risk of bias was assessed with PROBAST.

RESULTS

Of 5124 records, 13 were included examining 11 tools across 15 cohorts. The Gail tool was most represented (n = 11), followed by Tyrer-Cuzick (n = 5), BRCAPRO and iCARE-Lit (n = 3). No tool was consistently well-calibrated across multiple studies and breast density or polygenic risk scores did not improve calibration. Most tools identified a risk group with higher rates of observed cancers, but few tools identified lower-risk groups across different settings. All tools demonstrated a high risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

Some risk tools can identify groups of women at higher or lower breast cancer risk, but this is highly dependent on the setting and population.

Studies of parenchymal texture added to mammographic breast density and risk of breast cancer: a systematic review of the methods used in the literature

This systematic review aimed to assess the methods used to classify mammographic breast parenchymal features in relation to the prediction of future breast cancer. The databases including Medline (Ovid) 1946-, Embase.com 1947-, CINAHL Plus 1937-, Scopus 1823-, Cochrane Library (including CENTRAL), and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched through October 2021 to extract published articles in English describing the relationship of parenchymal texture features with the risk of breast cancer. Twenty-eight articles published since 2016 were included in the final review. The identification of parenchymal texture features varied from using a predefined list to machine-driven identification. A reduction in the number of features chosen for subsequent analysis in relation to cancer incidence then varied across statistical approaches and machine learning methods. The variation in approach and number of features identified for inclusion in analysis precluded generating a quantitative summary or meta-analysis of the value of these features to improve predicting risk of future breast cancers. This updated overview of the state of the art revealed research gaps; based on these, we provide recommendations for future studies using parenchymal features for mammogram images to make use of accumulating image data, and external validation of prediction models that extend to 5 and 10 years to guide clinical risk management. Following these recommendations could enhance the applicability of models, helping improve risk classification and risk prediction for women to tailor screening and prevention strategies to the level of risk.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) for Screening Mammography, From the AJR Special Series on AI Applications

Artificial intelligence (AI) applications for screening mammography are being marketed for clinical use in the interpretative domains of lesion detection and diagnosis, triage, and breast density assessment and in the noninterpretive domains of breast cancer risk assessment, image quality control, image acquisition, and dose reduction. Evidence in support of these nascent applications, particularly for lesion detection and diagnosis, is largely based on multireader studies with cancer-enriched datasets rather than rigorous clinical evaluation aligned with the application's specific intended clinical use. This article reviews commercial AI algorithms for screening mammography that are currently available for clinical practice, their use, and evidence supporting their performance. Clinical implementation considerations, such as workflow integration, governance, and ethical issues, are also described. In addition, the future of AI for screening mammography is discussed, including the development of interpretive and noninterpretive AI applications and strategic priorities for research and development.

Performance of polygenic risk scores for cancer prediction in a racially diverse academic biobank

PURPOSE

Genome-wide association studies have identified hundreds of single nucleotide variations (formerly single nucleotide polymorphisms) associated with several cancers, but the predictive ability of polygenic risk scores (PRSs) is unclear, especially among non-Whites.

METHODS

PRSs were derived from genome-wide significant single-nucleotide variations for 15 cancers in 20,079 individuals in an academic biobank. We evaluated the improvement in discriminatory accuracy by including cancer-specific PRS in patients of genetically-determined African and European ancestry.

RESULTS

Among the individuals of European genetic ancestry, PRSs for breast, colon, melanoma, and prostate were significantly associated with their respective cancers. Among the individuals of African genetic ancestry, PRSs for breast, colon, prostate, and thyroid were significantly associated with their respective cancers. The area under the curve of the model consisting of age, sex, and principal components was 0.621 to 0.710, and it increased by 1% to 4% with the inclusion of PRS in individuals of European genetic ancestry. In individuals of African genetic ancestry, area under the curve was overall higher in the model without the PRS (0.723-0.810) but increased by <1% with the inclusion of PRS for most cancers.

CONCLUSION

PRS moderately increased the ability to discriminate the cancer status in individuals of European but not African ancestry. Further large-scale studies are needed to identify ancestry-specific genetic factors in non-White populations to incorporate PRS into cancer risk assessment.

The current status of risk-stratified breast screening

Apart from high-risk scenarios such as the presence of highly penetrant genetic mutations, breast screening typically comprises mammography or tomosynthesis strategies defined by age. However, age-based screening ignores the range of breast cancer risks that individual women may possess and is antithetical to the ambitions of personalised early detection. Whilst screening mammography reduces breast cancer mortality, this is at the risk of potentially significant harms including overdiagnosis with overtreatment, and psychological morbidity associated with false positives. In risk-stratified screening, individualised risk assessment may inform screening intensity/interval, starting age, imaging modality used, or even decisions not to screen. However, clear evidence for its benefits and harms needs to be established. In this scoping review, the authors summarise the established and emerging evidence regarding several critical dependencies for successful risk-stratified breast screening: risk prediction model performance, epidemiological studies, retrospective clinical evaluations, health economic evaluations and qualitative research on feasibility and acceptability. Family history, breast density or reproductive factors are not on their own suitable for precisely estimating risk and risk prediction models increasingly incorporate combinations of demographic, clinical, genetic and imaging-related parameters. Clinical evaluations of risk-stratified screening are currently limited. Epidemiological evidence is sparse, and randomised trials only began in recent years.