Repeated measures of mammographic density and texture to evaluate prediction and risk of breast cancer: a systematic review of the methods used in the literature

Development and Validation of Dynamic 5-Year Breast Cancer Risk Model Using Repeated Mammograms

PURPOSE

Current image-based long-term risk prediction models do not fully use previous screening mammogram images. Dynamic prediction models have not been investigated for use in routine care.

METHODS

We analyzed a prospective WashU clinic-based cohort of 10,099 cancer-free women at entry (between November 3, 2008 and February 2012). Follow-up through 2020 identified 478 pathology-confirmed breast cancers (BCs). The cohort included 27% Black women. An external validation cohort (Emory) included 18,360 women screened from 2013, followed through 2020. This included 42% Black women and 332 pathology-confirmed BC excluding those diagnosed within 6 months of screening. We trained a dynamic model using repeated screening mammograms at WashU to predict 5-year risk. This opportunistic screening service presented a range of mammogram images for each woman. We applied the model to the external validation data to evaluate discrimination performance (AUC) and calibrated to US SEER.

RESULTS

Using 3 years of previous mammogram images available at the current screening visit, we obtained a 5-year AUC of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.78 to 0.83) in the external validation. This represents a significant improvement over the current visit mammogram AUC 0.74 (95% CI, 0.71 to 0.77; P < .01) in the same women. When calibrated, a risk ratio of 21.1 was observed comparing high (>4%) to very low (<0.3%) 5-year risk. The dynamic model classified 16% of the cohort as high risk among whom 61% of all BCs were diagnosed. The dynamic model performed comparably in Black and White women.

CONCLUSION

Adding previous screening mammogram images improves 5-year BC risk prediction beyond static models. It can identify women at high risk who might benefit from supplemental screening or risk-reduction strategies.

Artificial Intelligence-Driven Mammography-Based Future Breast Cancer Risk Prediction: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To summarize the literature regarding the performance of mammography-image based artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms, with and without additional clinical data, for future breast cancer risk prediction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed using six databases (medRixiv, bioRxiv, Embase, Engineer Village, IEEE Xplore, and PubMed) from 2012 through September 30, 2022. Studies were included if they used real-world screening mammography examinations to validate AI algorithms for future risk prediction based on images alone or in combination with clinical risk factors. The quality of studies was assessed, and predictive accuracy was recorded as the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC).

RESULTS

Sixteen studies met inclusion and exclusion criteria, of which 14 studies provided AUC values. The median AUC performance of AI image-only models was 0.72 (range 0.62-0.90) compared with 0.61 for breast density or clinical risk factor-based tools (range 0.54-0.69). Of the seven studies that compared AI image-only performance directly to combined image + clinical risk factor performance, six demonstrated no significant improvement, and one study demonstrated increased improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

Early efforts for predicting future breast cancer risk based on mammography images alone demonstrate comparable or better accuracy to traditional risk tools with little or no improvement when adding clinical risk factor data. Transitioning from clinical risk factor-based to AI image-based risk models may lead to more accurate, personalized risk-based screening approaches.

Development and evaluation of a method to assess breast cancer risk using a longitudinal history of mammographic density: a cohort study

BACKGROUND

Women with dense breasts have an increased risk of breast cancer. However, breast density is measured with variability, which may reduce the reliability and accuracy of its association with breast cancer risk. This is particularly relevant when visually assessing breast density due to variation in inter- and intra-reader assessments. To address this issue, we developed a longitudinal breast density measure which uses an individual woman's entire history of mammographic density, and we evaluated its association with breast cancer risk as well as its predictive ability.

METHODS

In total, 132,439 women, aged 40-73 yr, who were enrolled in Kaiser Permanente Washington and had multiple screening mammograms taken between 1996 and 2013 were followed up for invasive breast cancer through 2014. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) density was assessed at each screen. Continuous and derived categorical longitudinal density measures were developed using a linear mixed model that allowed for longitudinal density to be updated at each screen. Predictive ability was assessed using (1) age and body mass index-adjusted hazard ratios (HR) for breast density (time-varying covariate), (2) likelihood-ratio statistics (ΔLR-χ2) and (3) concordance indices.

RESULTS

In total, 2704 invasive breast cancers were diagnosed during follow-up (median = 5.2 yr; median mammograms per woman = 3). When compared with an age- and body mass index-only model, the gain in statistical information provided by the continuous longitudinal density measure was 23% greater than that provided by BI-RADS density (follow-up after baseline mammogram: ΔLR-χ2 = 379.6 (degrees of freedom (df) = 2) vs. 307.7 (df = 3)), which increased to 35% (ΔLR-χ2 = 251.2 vs. 186.7) for follow-up after three mammograms (n = 76,313, 2169 cancers). There was a sixfold difference in observed risk between densest and fattiest eight-category longitudinal density (HR = 6.3, 95% CI 4.7-8.7), versus a fourfold difference with BI-RADS density (HR = 4.3, 95% CI 3.4-5.5). Discriminatory accuracy was marginally greater for longitudinal versus BI-RADS density (c-index = 0.64 vs. 0.63, mean difference = 0.008, 95% CI 0.003-0.012).

CONCLUSIONS

Estimating mammographic density using a woman's history of breast density is likely to be more reliable than using the most recent observation only, which may lead to more reliable and accurate estimates of individual breast cancer risk. Longitudinal breast density has the potential to improve personal breast cancer risk estimation in women attending mammography screening.