Choosing Breast Cancer Risk Models: Importance of Independent Validation

Artificial Intelligence-Powered Imaging Biomarker Based on Mammography for Breast Cancer Risk Prediction

The purposes of this study were to develop an artificial intelligence (AI) model for future breast cancer risk prediction based on mammographic images, investigate the feasibility of the AI model, and compare the AI model, clinical statistical risk models, and Mirai, a state of-the art deep learning algorithm based on screening mammograms for 1-5-year breast cancer risk prediction. We trained and developed a deep learning model using a total of 36,995 serial mammographic examinations from 21,438 women (cancer-enriched mammograms, 17.5%). To determine the feasibility of the AI prediction model, mammograms and detailed clinical information were collected. C-indices and area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) for 1-5-year outcomes were obtained. We compared the AUCs of our AI prediction model, Mirai, and clinical statistical risk models, including the Tyrer-Cuzick (TC) model and Gail model, using DeLong's test. A total of 16,894 mammograms were independently collected for external validation, of which 4002 were followed by a cancer diagnosis within 5 years. Our AI prediction model obtained a C-index of 0.76, with AUCs of 0.90, 0.84, 0.81, 0.78, and 0.81, to predict the 1-5-year risks. Our AI prediction model showed significantly higher AUCs than those of the TC model (AUC: 0.57; p < 0.001) and Gail model (AUC: 0.52; p < 0.001), and achieved similar performance to Mirai. The deep learning AI model using mammograms and AI-powered imaging biomarkers has substantial potential to advance accurate breast cancer risk prediction.

Breast density analysis of digital breast tomosynthesis

Mammography shifted to digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in the US. An automated percentage of breast density (PD) technique designed for two-dimensional (2D) applications was evaluated with DBT using several breast cancer risk prediction measures: normalized-volumetric; dense volume; applied to the volume slices and averaged (slice-mean); and applied to synthetic 2D images. Volumetric measures were derived theoretically. PD was modeled as a function of compressed breast thickness (CBT). The mean and standard deviation of the pixel values were investigated. A matched case-control (CC) study (n = 426 pairs) was evaluated. Odd ratios (ORs) were estimated with 95% confidence intervals. ORs were significant for PD: identical for volumetric and slice-mean measures [OR = 1.43 (1.18, 1.72)] and [OR = 1.44 (1.18, 1.75)] for synthetic images. A 2nd degree polynomial (concave-down) was used to model PD as a function of CBT: location of the maximum PD value was similar across CCs, occurring at 0.41 × CBT, and PD was significant [OR = 1.47 (1.21, 1.78)]. The means from the volume and synthetic images were also significant [ORs ~ 1.31 (1.09, 1.57)]. An alternative standardized 2D synthetic image was constructed, where each pixel value represents the percentage of breast density above its location. Several measures were significant and an alternative method for constructing a standardized 2D synthetic image was produced.

Artificial Intelligence in Breast Cancer Diagnosis and Personalized Medicine

Breast cancer is a significant cause of cancer-related mortality in women worldwide. Early and precise diagnosis is crucial, and clinical outcomes can be markedly enhanced. The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) has ushered in a new era, notably in image analysis, paving the way for major advancements in breast cancer diagnosis and individualized treatment regimens. In the diagnostic workflow for patients with breast cancer, the role of AI encompasses screening, diagnosis, staging, biomarker evaluation, prognostication, and therapeutic response prediction. Although its potential is immense, its complete integration into clinical practice is challenging. Particularly, these challenges include the imperatives for extensive clinical validation, model generalizability, navigating the "black-box" conundrum, and pragmatic considerations of embedding AI into everyday clinical environments. In this review, we comprehensively explored the diverse applications of AI in breast cancer care, underlining its transformative promise and existing impediments. In radiology, we specifically address AI in mammography, tomosynthesis, risk prediction models, and supplementary imaging methods, including magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound. In pathology, our focus is on AI applications for pathologic diagnosis, evaluation of biomarkers, and predictions related to genetic alterations, treatment response, and prognosis in the context of breast cancer diagnosis and treatment. Our discussion underscores the transformative potential of AI in breast cancer management and emphasizes the importance of focused research to realize the full spectrum of benefits of AI in patient care.

Bilateral Analysis Boosts the Performance of Mammography-based Deep Learning Models in Breast Cancer Risk Prediction

Breast cancer is one of the leading causes of death among women. Early prediction of breast cancer can significantly improve the survival rates. Breast density was proven as a reliable risk factor. Deep learning models can learn subtle cues in the mammogram images. CNN models were recently shown to improve the risk discrimination in full-field mammograms. This study aims to improve risk prediction models using bilateral analysis. Bilateral analysis is the process of comparing two breasts to verify presence of anomalies. We developed a Siamese neural network to leverage the bilateral information and asymmetries between the two mammograms of the same patient. We tested our model on 271 patients and compared the results of our Siamese model against the traditional unilateral CNN model. Our results showed AUCs of 0.75 and 0.70 respectively (p = 0.0056). The Siamese model also exhibits higher sensitivity, specificity, precision, and false positive rate with values of 0.68, 0.69, 0.71, 0.31 respectively. While the CNN values were 0.61, 0.66, 0.67, 0.34 respectively. We merged both models by two techniques using pre-trained weights and weighted voting ensemble. The merging technique boosted the AUC to 0.78. The results suggest that bilateral analysis can significantly improve the risk discrimination.

A risk model for digital breast tomosynthesis to predict breast cancer and guide clinical care

Screening with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) improves breast cancer detection and reduces false positives. However, currently, no breast cancer risk model takes advantage of the additional information generated by DBT imaging for breast cancer risk prediction. We developed and internally validated a DBT-based short-term risk model for predicting future late-stage and interval breast cancers after negative screening exams. We included the available 805 incident breast cancers and a random sample of 5173 healthy women matched on year of study entry in a nested case-control study from 154,200 multiethnic women, aged 35 to 74, attending DBT screening in the United States between 2014 and 2019. A relative risk model was trained using elastic net logistic regression and nested cross-validation to estimate risks for using imaging features and age. An absolute risk model was developed using derived risks and U.S. incidence and competing mortality rates. Absolute risks, discrimination performance, and risk stratification were estimated in the left-out validation set. The discrimination performance of 1-year risk was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.79 to 0.85) with good calibration (P = 0.7). Using the U.S. Preventive Service Task Force guidelines, 14% of the women were at high risk, 19.6 times higher compared to general risk. In this high-risk group, 76% of stage II and III cancers and 59% of stage 0 cancers were observed (P < 0.01). Using mammographic features generated from DBT screens, our image-based risk prediction model could guide radiologists in selecting women for clinical care, potentially leading to earlier detection and improved prognoses.

BREAst screening Tailored for HEr (BREATHE)-A study protocol on personalised risk-based breast cancer screening programme

Routine mammography screening is currently the standard tool for finding cancers at an early stage, when treatment is most successful. Current breast screening programmes are one-size-fits-all which all women above a certain age threshold are encouraged to participate. However, breast cancer risk varies by individual. The BREAst screening Tailored for HEr (BREATHE) study aims to assess acceptability of a comprehensive risk-based personalised breast screening in Singapore. Advancing beyond the current age-based screening paradigm, BREATHE integrates both genetic and non-genetic breast cancer risk prediction tools to personalise screening recommendations. BREATHE is a cohort study targeting to recruit ~3,500 women. The first recruitment visit will include questionnaires and a buccal cheek swab. After receiving a tailored breast cancer risk report, participants will attend an in-person risk review, followed by a final session assessing the acceptability of our risk stratification programme. Risk prediction is based on: a) Gail model (non-genetic), b) mammographic density and recall, c) BOADICEA predictions (breast cancer predisposition genes), and d) breast cancer polygenic risk score. For national implementation of personalised risk-based breast screening, exploration of the acceptability within the target populace is critical, in addition to validated predication tools. To our knowledge, this is the first study to implement a comprehensive risk-based mammography screening programme in Asia. The BREATHE study will provide essential data for policy implementation which will transform the health system to deliver a better health and healthcare outcomes.

Mammography screening and mortality by risk status in the California teachers study

Background

The debate continues among medical professionals regarding the frequency, starting age, and stopping age for mammography screening. Some experts suggest tailoring recommendations based on individuals’ personal breast cancer risk. Previous studies have not compared the impact of annual versus biennial mammography stratified by age group and risk category. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between mammography frequency and mortality by age group and risk category in the California Teachers Study.

Methods

Using data from study questionnaires from 93,438 women between the ages of 40 and 85 and linkages to the California Cancer Registry and other indices, overall and breast cancer-specific mortality by mammography frequency were estimated using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, stratified by age group and risk category at baseline as determined by the Gail breast cancer risk model.

Results

During the follow-up period of 20 years, overall mortality risk was lower in women who had annual or biennial mammography compared to less frequent or no mammography in all age groups. Annual mammography was associated with lower overall mortality risk compared to biennial mammography among women age 50–85. This difference was especially apparent in women age 60–74, regardless of estimated Gail risk category at baseline. Breast cancer-specific mortality was lower among women who had annual mammography compared to biennial or less frequent mammography among women age 60–74, regardless of their baseline risk.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that at least biennial mammography is beneficial to most women age 40–85 and that annual mammography is more beneficial than biennial mammography to most women age 50–85 in terms of overall mortality.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-021-09071-1.

Identification of Women at High Risk of Breast Cancer Who Need Supplemental Screening

Background Mammography screening reduces breast cancer mortality, but a proportion of breast cancers are missed and are detected at later stages or develop during between-screening intervals. Purpose To develop a risk model based on negative mammograms that identifies women likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer before or at the next screening examination. Materials and Methods This study was based on the prospective screening cohort Karolinska Mammography Project for Risk Prediction of Breast Cancer (KARMA), 2011-2017. An image-based risk model was developed by using the Stratus method and computer-aided detection mammographic features (density, masses, microcalcifications), differences in the left and right breasts, and age. The lifestyle extended model included menopausal status, family history of breast cancer, body mass index, hormone replacement therapy, and use of tobacco and alcohol. The genetic extended model included a polygenic risk score with 313 single nucleotide polymorphisms. Age-adjusted relative risks and tumor subtype specific risks were estimated by using logistic regression, and absolute risks were calculated. Results Of 70 877 participants in the KARMA cohort, 974 incident cancers were sampled from 9376 healthy women (mean age, 54 years ± 10 [standard deviation]). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the image-based model was 0.73 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71, 0.74). The AUCs for the lifestyle and genetic extended models were 0.74 (95% CI: 0.72, 0.75) and 0.77 (95% CI: 0.75, 0.79), respectively. There was a relative eightfold difference in risk between women at high risk and those at general risk. High-risk women were more likely to be diagnosed with stage II cancers and with tumors 20 mm or larger and were less likely to have stage I and estrogen receptor-positive tumors. The image-based model was validated in three external cohorts. Conclusion By combining three mammographic features, differences in the left and right breasts, and optionally lifestyle factors and family history and a polygenic risk score, the model identified women at high likelihood of being diagnosed with breast cancer within 2 years of a negative screening examination and in possible need of supplemental screening. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article.