The contributions of breast density and common genetic variation to breast cancer risk.
ABSTRACT: We evaluated whether a 76-locus polygenic risk score (PRS) and Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) breast density were independent risk factors within three studies (1643 case patients, 2397 control patients) using logistic regression models. We incorporated the PRS odds ratio (OR) into the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) risk-prediction model while accounting for its attributable risk and compared five-year absolute risk predictions between models using area under the curve (AUC) statistics. All statistical tests were two-sided. BI-RADS density and PRS were independent risk factors across all three studies (P interaction = .23). Relative to those with scattered fibroglandular densities and average PRS (2(nd) quartile), women with extreme density and highest quartile PRS had 2.7-fold (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.74 to 4.12) increased risk, while those with low density and PRS had reduced risk (OR = 0.30, 95% CI = 0.18 to 0.51). PRS added independent information (P < .001) to the BCSC model and improved discriminatory accuracy from AUC = 0.66 to AUC = 0.69. Although the BCSC-PRS model was well calibrated in case-control data, independent cohort data are needed to test calibration in the general population.
Project description:Breast cancer risk assessment can inform the use of screening and prevention modalities. We investigated the performance of the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) risk model in combination with a polygenic risk score (PRS) comprised of 83 single nucleotide polymorphisms identified from genome-wide association studies. We conducted a nested case-control study of 486 cases and 495 matched controls within a screening cohort. The PRS was calculated using a Bayesian approach. The contributions of the PRS and variables in the BCSC model to breast cancer risk were tested using conditional logistic regression. Discriminatory accuracy of the models was compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Increasing quartiles of the PRS were positively associated with breast cancer risk, with OR 2.54 (95 % CI 1.69-3.82) for breast cancer in the highest versus lowest quartile. In a multivariable model, the PRS, family history, and breast density remained strong risk factors. The AUROC of the PRS was 0.60 (95 % CI 0.57-0.64), and an Asian-specific PRS had AUROC 0.64 (95 % CI 0.53-0.74). A combined model including the BCSC risk factors and PRS had better discrimination than the BCSC model (AUROC 0.65 versus 0.62, p = 0.01). The BCSC-PRS model classified 18 % of cases as high-risk (5-year risk ?3 %), compared with 7 % using the BCSC model. The PRS improved discrimination of the BCSC risk model and classified more cases as high-risk. Further consideration of the PRS's role in decision-making around screening and prevention strategies is merited.
Project description:Twenty-one states have laws requiring that women be notified if they have dense breasts and that they be advised to discuss supplemental imaging with their provider.To better direct discussions of supplemental imaging by determining which combinations of breast cancer risk and Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) breast density categories are associated with high interval cancer rates.Prospective cohort.Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) breast imaging facilities.365,426 women aged 40 to 74 years who had 831,455 digital screening mammography examinations.BI-RADS breast density, BCSC 5-year breast cancer risk, and interval cancer rate (invasive cancer ?12 months after a normal mammography result) per 1000 mammography examinations. High interval cancer rate was defined as more than 1 case per 1000 examinations.High interval cancer rates were observed for women with 5-year risk of 1.67% or greater and extremely dense breasts or 5-year risk of 2.50% or greater and heterogeneously dense breasts (24% of all women with dense breasts). The interval rate of advanced-stage disease was highest (>0.4 case per 1000 examinations) among women with 5-year risk of 2.50% or greater and heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts (21% of all women with dense breasts). Five-year risk was low to average (0% to 1.66%) for 51.0% of women with heterogeneously dense breasts and 52.5% with extremely dense breasts, with interval cancer rates of 0.58 to 0.63 and 0.72 to 0.89 case per 1000 examinations, respectively.The benefit of supplemental imaging was not assessed.Breast density should not be the sole criterion for deciding whether supplemental imaging is justified because not all women with dense breasts have high interval cancer rates. BCSC 5-year risk combined with BI-RADS breast density can identify women at high risk for interval cancer to inform patient-provider discussions about alternative screening strategies.National Cancer Institute.
Project description:INTRODUCTION: Mammographic density is a strong breast cancer risk factor and a major determinant of screening sensitivity. However, there is currently no validated estimation method for full-field digital mammography (FFDM). METHODS: The performance of three area-based approaches (BI-RADS, the semi-automated Cumulus, and the fully-automated ImageJ-based approach) and three fully-automated volumetric methods (Volpara, Quantra and single energy x-ray absorptiometry (SXA)) were assessed in 3168 FFDM images from 414 cases and 685 controls. Linear regression models were used to assess associations between breast cancer risk factors and density among controls, and logistic regression models to assess density-breast cancer risk associations, adjusting for age, body mass index (BMI) and reproductive variables. RESULTS: Quantra and the ImageJ-based approach failed to produce readings for 4% and 11% of the participants. All six density assessment methods showed that percent density (PD) was inversely associated with age, BMI, being parous and postmenopausal at mammography. PD was positively associated with breast cancer for all methods, but with the increase in risk per standard deviation increment in PD being highest for Volpara (1.83; 95% CI: 1.51 to 2.21) and Cumulus (1.58; 1.33 to 1.88) and lower for the ImageJ-based method (1.45; 1.21 to 1.74), Quantra (1.40; 1.19 to 1.66) and SXA (1.37; 1.16 to 1.63). Women in the top PD quintile (or BI-RADS 4) had 8.26 (4.28 to 15.96), 3.94 (2.26 to 6.86), 3.38 (2.00 to 5.72), 2.99 (1.76 to 5.09), 2.55 (1.46 to 4.43) and 2.96 (0.50 to 17.5) times the risk of those in the bottom one (or BI-RADS 1), respectively, for Volpara, Quantra, Cumulus, SXA, ImageJ-based method, and BI-RADS (P for trend <0.0001 for all). The ImageJ-based method had a slightly higher ability to discriminate between cases and controls (area under the curve (AUC) for PD?=?0.68, P?=?0.05), and Quantra slightly lower (AUC?=?0.63; P?=?0.06), than Cumulus (AUC?=?0.65). CONCLUSIONS: Fully-automated methods are valid alternatives to the labour-intensive "gold standard" Cumulus for quantifying density in FFDM. The choice of a particular method will depend on the aims and setting but the same approach will be required for longitudinal density assessments.
Project description:One measure of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) breast density improves 5-year breast cancer risk prediction, but the value of sequential measures is unknown. We determined whether two BI-RADS density measures improve the predictive accuracy of the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium 5-year risk model compared with one measure.We included 722,654 women of ages 35 to 74 years with two mammograms with BI-RADS density measures on average 1.8 years apart; 13,715 developed invasive breast cancer. We used Cox regression to estimate the relative hazards of breast cancer for age, race/ethnicity, family history of breast cancer, history of breast biopsy, and one or two density measures. We developed a risk prediction model by combining these estimates with 2000-2010 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results incidence and 2010 vital statistics for competing risk of death.The two-measure density model had marginally greater discriminatory accuracy than the one-measure model (AUC, 0.640 vs. 0.635). Of 18.6% of women (134,404 of 722,654) who decreased density categories, 15.4% (20,741 of 134,404) of women whose density decreased from heterogeneously or extremely dense to a lower density category with one other risk factor had a clinically meaningful increase in 5-year risk from <1.67% with the one-density model to ?1.67% with the two-density model.The two-density model has similar overall discrimination to the one-density model for predicting 5-year breast cancer risk and improves risk classification for women with risk factors and a decrease in density.A two-density model should be considered for women whose density decreases when calculating breast cancer risk.
Project description:Importance:Federal legislation proposes requiring that screening mammography reports to practitioners and women incorporate breast density information and that women with dense breasts discuss supplemental imaging with their practitioner given their increased risk of interval breast cancer. Instead of discussing supplemental imaging with all women with dense breasts, it may be more efficient to identify women at high risk of advanced breast cancer who may benefit most from supplemental imaging. Objective:To identify women at high risk of advanced breast cancer to target woman-practitioner discussions about the need for supplemental imaging. Design, Setting, and Participants:This prospective cohort study assessed 638?856 women aged 40 to 74 years who had 1?693?163 screening digital mammograms taken at Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) imaging facilities from January 3, 2005, to December 31, 2014. Data analysis was performed from October 10, 2018, to March 20, 2019. Exposures:Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) breast density and BCSC 5-year breast cancer risk. Main Outcomes and Measures:Advanced breast cancer (stage IIB or higher) within 12 months of screening mammography; high advanced cancer rates (?0.61 cases per 1000 mammograms) defined as the top 25th percentile of advanced cancer rates, and discussions per potential advanced cancer prevented. Results:A total of 638?856 women (mean [SD] age, 56.5 [8.9] years) were included in the study. Women with dense breasts (heterogeneously or extremely dense) accounted for 47.0% of screened women and 60.0% of advanced cancers. Low advanced cancer rates (<0.61 per 1000 mammograms) occurred in 34.5% of screened women with dense breasts. High advanced breast cancer rates occurred in women with heterogeneously dense breasts and a 5-year risk of 2.5% or higher (6.0% of screened women) and those with extremely dense breasts and a 5-year risk of 1.0% or higher (6.5% of screened women). Density-risk subgroups at high advanced cancer risk comprised 12.5% of screened women and 27.1% of advanced cancers. Density-risk subgroups had the fewest supplemental imaging discussions per potential advanced cancer prevented compared with a strategy based on dense breasts (1097 vs 1866 discussions). Women with heterogeneously dense breasts and a 5-year risk less than 1.67% (21.7% of screened women) had high rates of false-positive short-interval follow-up recommendation without undergoing supplemental imaging. Conclusions and Relevance:The findings suggest that breast density notification should be combined with breast cancer risk so women at highest risk for advanced cancer are targeted for supplemental imaging discussions and women at low risk are not. BI-RADS breast density combined with BCSC 5-year risk may offer a more efficient strategy for supplemental imaging discussions than targeting all women with dense breasts.
Project description:Qualification tasks in mammography and breast ultrasound were developed for the American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) 6666 Investigators. We sought to assess the effects of feedback on breast ultrasound interpretive performance and agreement in BI-RADS feature analysis among a subset of these experienced observers.After a 1-hour didactic session on BI-RADS: Ultrasound, an interpretive skills quiz set of 70 orthogonal sets of breast ultrasound images including 25 (36%) malignancies was presented to 100 experienced breast imaging observers. Thirty-five observers reviewed the quiz set twice: first without and then with immediate feedback of consensus feature analysis, management recommendations, and pathologic truth. Observer performance (sensitivity, specificity, area under the curve [AUC]) was calculated without feedback and with feedback. Kappas were determined for agreement on feature analysis and assessments.For 35 observers without feedback, the mean sensitivity was 89% (range, 68-100%); specificity, 62% (range, 42-82%); and AUC, 82% (range, 73-89%). With feedback, the mean sensitivity was 93% (range, 80-100%; mean increase, 4%; range of increase, 0-12%; p < 0.0001), the mean specificity was 61% (range, 45-73%; mean decrease, 1%; range of change, -18% to 11%; p = 0.19), and the mean AUC was 84% (range, 78-90%; mean increase, 2%; range of change, -3% to 9%; p < 0.0001). Three breast imagers in the lowest quartile of initial performance showed the greatest improvement in sensitivity with no change or improvement in AUC. The kappa values for feature analysis did not change, but there was improved agreement about final assessments, with the kappa value increasing from 0.53 (SE, 0.02) without feedback to 0.59 (SE, 0.02) with feedback (p < 0.0001).Most experienced breast imagers showed excellent breast ultrasound interpretive skills. Immediate feedback of consensus BI-RADS: Ultrasound features and histopathologic results improved performance in ultrasound interpretation across all experience variables.
Project description:Technology advances in genome-wide association studies (GWAS) has engendered optimism that we have entered a new age of precision medicine, in which the risk of breast cancer can be predicted on the basis of a person's genetic variants. The goal of this study is to evaluate the discriminatory power of common genetic variants in breast cancer risk estimation. We conducted a retrospective case-control study drawing from an existing personalized medicine data repository. We collected variables that predict breast cancer risk: 153 high-frequency/low-penetrance genetic variants, reflecting the state-of-the-art GWAS on breast cancer, mammography descriptors and BI-RADS assessment categories in the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) lexicon. We trained and tested naïve Bayes models by using these predictive variables. We generated ROC curves and used the area under the ROC curve (AUC) to quantify predictive performance. We found that genetic variants achieved comparable predictive performance to BI-RADS assessment categories in terms of AUC (0.650 vs. 0.659, p-value = 0.742), but significantly lower predictive performance than the combination of BI-RADS assessment categories and mammography descriptors (0.650 vs. 0.751, p-value < 0.001). A better understanding of relative predictive capability of genetic variants and mammography data may benefit clinicians and patients to make appropriate decisions about breast cancer screening, prevention, and treatment in the era of precision medicine.
Project description:Background:Accurate breast cancer risk assessment for women attending routine screening is needed to guide screening and preventive interventions. We evaluated the accuracy of risk predictions from both visual and volumetric mammographic density combined with the Tyrer-Cuzick breast cancer risk model. Methods:A case-control study (474 patient participants and 2243 healthy control participants) of women aged 40-79 years was performed using self-reported classical risk factors. Breast density was measured by using automated volumetric software and Breast Imaging and Reporting Data System (BI-RADS) density categories. Odds ratios (95% CI) were estimated by using logistic regression, adjusted for age, demographic factors, and 10-year risk from the Tyrer-Cuzick model, for a change from the 25th to 75th percentile of the adjusted percent density distribution in control participants (IQ-OR). Results:After adjustment for classical risk factors in the Tyrer-Cuzick model, age, and body mass index (BMI), BI-RADS density had an IQ-OR of 1.55 (95% CI = 1.33 to 1.80) compared with 1.40 (95% CI = 1.21 to 1.60) for volumetric percent density. Fibroglandular volume (IQ-OR = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.12 to 1.47) was a weaker predictor than was BI-RADS density (Pdiff = 0.014) or volumetric percent density (Pdiff = 0.065). In this setting, 4.8% of women were at high risk (8% + 10-year risk), using the Tyrer-Cuzick model without density, and 7.1% (BI-RADS) compared with 6.8% (volumetric) when combined with density. Conclusion:The addition of volumetric and visual mammographic density measures to classical risk factors improves risk stratification. A combined risk could be used to guide precision medicine, through risk-adapted screening and prevention strategies.