Background: The utility of incorporating detailed family history into breast cancer risk prediction hinges on its independent contribution to breast cancer risk. We evaluated associations between detailed family history and breast cancer risk while accounting for breast density.Methods: We followed 222,019 participants ages 35 to 74 in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, of whom 2,456 developed invasive breast cancer. We calculated standardized breast cancer risks within joint strata of breast density and simple (1^st-degree female relative) or detailed (first-degree, second-degree, or first- and second-degree female relative) breast cancer family history. We fit log-binomial models to estimate age-specific breast cancer associations for simple and detailed family history, accounting for breast density.Results: Simple first-degree family history was associated with increased breast cancer risk compared with no first-degree history [Risk ratio (RR), 1.5; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.0-2.1 at age 40; RR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.3-1.7 at age 50; RR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2-1.6 at age 60; RR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.5 at age 70). Breast cancer associations with detailed family history were strongest for women with first- and second-degree family history compared with no history (RR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.1-3.2 at age 40); this association weakened in higher age groups (RR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.88-1.5 at age 70). Associations did not change substantially when adjusted for breast density.Conclusions: Even with adjustment for breast density, a history of breast cancer in both first- and second-degree relatives is more strongly associated with breast cancer than simple first-degree family history.Impact: Future efforts to improve breast cancer risk prediction models should evaluate detailed family history as a risk factor. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(6); 938-44. ©2017 AACR.

Background

Advanced breast cancer is an outcome used to evaluate screening effectiveness. The advanced cancer definition resulting in the best discrimination of breast cancer death has not been studied in a breast imaging population.

Methods

A total of 52 496 women aged 40-79 years participating in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium diagnosed with invasive cancer were staged using the 8th edition of American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) anatomic and prognostic pathologic systems and Tomosynthesis Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (TMIST) tumor categories. We calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for predicting 5-year breast cancer death and the sensitivity and specificity for predicting 5-year breast cancer death for 3 advanced cancer classifications: anatomic stage IIB or higher, prognostic pathologic stage IIA or higher, and TMIST advanced cancer.

Results

The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves for predicting 5-year breast cancer death for AJCC anatomic stage, AJCC prognostic pathologic stage, and TMIST tumor categories were 0.826 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.817 to 0.835), 0.856 (95% CI = 0.846 to 0.866), and 0.789 (95% CI = 0.780 to 0.797), respectively. AJCC prognostic pathologic stage had statistically significantly better discrimination than AJCC anatomic stage (difference = 0.030, bootstrap 95% CI = 0.024 to 0.037) and TMIST tumor categories (difference = 0.067, bootstrap 95% CI = 0.059 to 0.075). The sensitivity and specificity for predicting 5-year breast cancer death for AJCC anatomic stage IIB or higher, AJCC prognostic pathologic stage IIA or higher, and TMIST advanced cancer were 72.6%, 76.7%, and 96.1%; and 78.9%, 81.6%, and 41.1%, respectively.

Conclusions

Defining advanced cancer as AJCC prognostic pathologic stage IIA or higher most accurately predicts breast cancer death. Use of this definition by investigators will facilitate comparing breast cancer screening effectiveness studies.

Background and Aim: Collecting accurate dietary information in the research setting is challenging due to the inherent biases, duration, and resource-intensive nature of traditional data collection methods. Diet ID™ is a novel, rapid assessment method that uses an image-based algorithm to identify dietary patterns and estimate nutrient intake. The purpose of this analysis was to explore the criterion validity between Diet ID™ and additional measures of dietary intake. Methods: This prospective cohort study (n = 42) collected dietary information using Diet ID™, the Nutrition Data System for Research (NDSR), plasma carotenoid concentrations, and the Veggie Meter^® to estimate carotenoid levels in the skin. Results: There were significant correlations between Diet ID™ and NDSR for diet quality, calories, carbohydrates, protein, fiber, and cholesterol. Vitamin A and carotenoid intake were significantly correlated, with the exception of α-carotene and lycopene. Significant correlations were observed for calcium, folate, iron, sodium, potassium, Vitamins B₂, B₃, B₆, C, and E. Skin carotenoid scores and plasma carotenoids were correlated with carotenoid intake from Diet ID™. Conclusions: Diet ID™ may be a useful tool in nutrition research as a less time-intensive and minimally burdensome dietary data collection method for both participants and researchers.

Purpose

In order to use a breast cancer prediction model in clinical practice to guide screening and prevention, it must be well calibrated and validated in samples independent from the one used for development. We assessed the accuracy of the breast cancer surveillance consortium (BCSC) model in a racially diverse population followed for up to 10 years.

Methods

The BCSC model combines breast density with other risk factors to estimate a woman's 5- and 10-year risk of invasive breast cancer. We validated the model in an independent cohort of 252,997 women in the Chicago area. We evaluated calibration using the ratio of expected to observed (E/O) invasive breast cancers in the cohort and discrimination using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC).

Results

In an independent cohort of 252,997 women (median age 50 years, 26% non-Hispanic Black), the BCSC model was well calibrated (E/O = 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90-0.98), but underestimated the incidence of invasive breast cancer in younger women and in women with low mammographic density. The AUROC was 0.633, similar to that observed in prior validation studies.

Conclusions

The BCSC model is a well-validated risk assessment tool for breast cancer that may be particularly useful when assessing the utility of supplemental screening in women with dense breasts.

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.

Purpose

The aim of this study was to develop a prioritization strategy for scheduling immediate screening mammographic interpretation and possible diagnostic evaluation.

Methods

A population-based cohort with screening mammograms performed from 2012 to 2020 at 126 radiology facilities from 7 Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries was identified. Classification trees identified combinations of clinical history (age, BI-RADS® density, time since prior mammogram, history of false-positive recall or biopsy result), screening modality (digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis), and facility characteristics (profit status, location, screening volume, practice type, academic affiliation) that grouped screening mammograms by recall rate, with ≥12/100 considered high and ≥16/100 very high. An efficiency ratio was estimated as the percentage of recalls divided by the percentage of mammograms.

Results

The study cohort included 2,674,051 screening mammograms in 925,777 women, with 235,569 recalls. The most important predictor of recall was time since prior mammogram, followed by age, history of false-positive recall, breast density, history of benign biopsy, and screening modality. Recall rates were very high for baseline mammograms (21.3/100; 95% confidence interval, 19.7-23.0) and high for women with ≥5 years since prior mammogram (15.1/100; 95% confidence interval, 14.3-16.1). The 9.2% of mammograms in subgroups with very high and high recall rates accounted for 19.2% of recalls, an efficiency ratio of 2.1 compared with a random approach. Adding women <50 years of age with dense breasts accounted for 20.3% of mammograms and 33.9% of recalls (efficiency ratio = 1.7). Results including facility-level characteristics were similar.

Conclusions

Prioritizing women with baseline mammograms or ≥5 years since prior mammogram for immediate interpretation and possible diagnostic evaluation could considerably reduce the number of women needing to return for diagnostic imaging at another visit.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic reduced mammography use, potentially delaying breast cancer diagnoses. Purpose To examine breast biopsy recommendations and breast cancers diagnosed before and during the COVID-19 pandemic by mode of detection (screen detected vs symptomatic) and women's characteristics. Materials and Methods In this secondary analysis of prospectively collected data, monthly breast biopsy recommendations after mammography, US, or both with subsequent biopsy performed were examined from 66 facilities of the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium between January 2019 and September 2020. The number of monthly and cumulative biopsies recommended and performed and the number of subsequent cancers diagnosed during the pandemic period (March 2020 to September 2020) were compared with data from the prepandemic period using Wald χ² tests. Analyses were stratified by mode of detection and race or ethnicity. Results From January 2019 to September 2020, 17 728 biopsies were recommended and performed, with 6009 cancers diagnosed. From March to September 2020, there were substantially fewer breast biopsy recommendations with cancer diagnoses when compared with the same period in 2019 (1650 recommendations in 2020 vs 2171 recommendations in 2019 [24% fewer], P < .001), predominantly due to fewer screen-detected cancers (722 cancers in 2020 vs 1169 cancers in 2019 [38% fewer], P < .001) versus symptomatic cancers (895 cancers in 2020 vs 965 cancers in 2019 [7% fewer], P = .27). The decrease in cancer diagnoses was largest in Asian (67 diagnoses in 2020 vs 142 diagnoses in 2019 [53% fewer], P = .06) and Hispanic (82 diagnoses in 2020 vs 145 diagnoses in 2019 [43% fewer], P = .13) women, followed by Black women (210 diagnoses in 2020 vs 287 diagnoses in 2019 [27% fewer], P = .21). The decrease was smallest in non-Hispanic White women (1128 diagnoses in 2020 vs 1357 diagnoses in 2019 [17% fewer], P = .09). Conclusion There were substantially fewer breast biopsies with cancer diagnoses during the COVID-19 pandemic from March to September 2020 compared with the same period in 2019, with Asian and Hispanic women experiencing the largest declines, followed by Black women. © RSNA, 2022 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Heller in this issue.