Purpose

Women with proliferative breast lesions are candidates for primary prevention, but few risk models incorporate benign findings to assess breast cancer risk. We incorporated benign breast disease (BBD) diagnoses into the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) risk model, the only breast cancer risk assessment tool that uses breast density.

Methods

We developed and validated a competing-risk model using 2000 to 2010 SEER data for breast cancer incidence and 2010 vital statistics to adjust for the competing risk of death. We used Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate the relative hazards for age, race/ethnicity, family history of breast cancer, history of breast biopsy, BBD diagnoses, and breast density in the BCSC.

Results

We included 1,135,977 women age 35 to 74 years undergoing mammography with no history of breast cancer; 17% of the women had a prior breast biopsy. During a mean follow-up of 6.9 years, 17,908 women were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer. The BCSC BBD model slightly overpredicted risk (expected-to-observed ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.06) and had modest discriminatory accuracy (area under the receiver operator characteristic curve, 0.665). Among women with proliferative findings, adding BBD to the model increased the proportion of women with an estimated 5-year risk of 3% or higher from 9.3% to 27.8% (P<.001).

Conclusion

The BCSC BBD model accurately estimates women's risk for breast cancer using breast density and BBD diagnoses. Greater numbers of high-risk women eligible for primary prevention after BBD diagnosis are identified using the BCSC BBD model.

USA states have begun legislating mammographic breast density reporting to women, requiring that women undergoing screening mammography who have dense breast tissue (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System [BI-RADS] density c or d) receive written notification of their breast density; however, the impact that misclassification of breast density will have on this reporting remains unclear. The aim of this study was to assess reproducibility of the four-category BI-RADS density measure and examine its relationship with a continuous measure of percent density. We enrolled 19 radiologists, experienced in breast imaging, from a single integrated health care system. Radiologists interpreted 341 screening mammograms at two points in time 6 months apart. We assessed intra- and interobserver agreement in radiologists'; interpretations of BI-RADS density and explored whether agreement depended upon radiologist characteristics. We examined the relationship between BI-RADS density and percent density in a subset of 282 examinations. Intraradiologist agreement was moderate to substantial, with kappa varying across radiologists from 0.50 to 0.81 (mean = 0.69, 95% CI [0.63, 0.73]). Intraradiologist agreement was higher for radiologists with ≥10 years experience interpreting mammograms (difference in mean kappa = 0.10, 95% CI [0.01, 0.24]). Interradiologist agreement varied widely across radiologist pairs from slight to substantial, with kappa ranging from 0.02 to 0.72 (mean = 0.46, 95% CI [0.36, 0.55]). Of 145 examinations interpreted as "nondense" (BI-RADS density a or b) by the majority of radiologists, 82.8% were interpreted as "dense" (BI-RADS density c or d) by at least one radiologist. Of 187 examinations interpreted as "dense" by the majority of radiologists, 47.1% were interpreted as "nondense" by at least one radiologist. While the examinations of almost half of the women in our study were interpreted clinically as having BI-RADS density c or d, only about 10% of examinations had percent density >50%. Our results suggest that breast density reporting based on a single BI-RADS density interpretation may be misleading due to high interradiologist variability and a lack of correspondence between BI-RADS density and percent density.

Background

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusion

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.

Impact

A two-density model should be considered for women whose density decreases when calculating breast cancer risk.

Background

Risk factors may differentially influence development of estrogen receptor (ER)-positive vs -negative breast cancer. We examined associations with strong, prevalent risk factors by ER subtype.

Methods

Of 1 279 443 women age 35 to 74 years participating in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, 14 969 developed ER-positive and 3617 developed ER-negative invasive breast cancer. We calculated hazard ratios (HRs) using Cox regression and compared ER subtype hazard ratios at representative ages or by menopausal status using Wald tests. All statistical tests were two-sided.

Results

For women age 40 years, compared with no prior biopsy, ER-positive vs ER-negative HRs were 1.53 (95% CI = 1.30 to 1.81) vs 1.26 (95% CI = 0.90 to 1.76) for nonproliferative disease, 1.63 (95% CI = 1.23 to 2.17) vs 1.41 (95% CI = 0.78 to 2.57) for proliferative disease without atypia, and 4.47 (95% CI = 2.88 to 6.96) vs 0.20 (95% CI = 0.02 to 2.51) for proliferative disease with atypia. Benign disease proliferation risk was stronger for ER-positive than ER-negative cancer for women age 35 years (Wald P = .04), age 40 years (Wald P = .04), and age 50 years (Wald P = .06). Among pre/perimenopausal women, body mass index (BMI) had a stronger association with ER-negative than ER-positive cancer (obese II/III vs. normal weight: HR = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.19 to 1.94; vs 1.21, 95% CI = 1.08 to 1.36). Increasing BMI similarly increased ER-positive and ER-negative cancer risk among postmenopausal hormone users (Wald P = .15) and nonusers (Wald P = .08). Associations with ER subtype varied by race/ethnicity across all ages (P < .001) and by family history of breast cancer and breast density for specific ages.

Conclusions

Strength of risk factor associations differed by ER subtype. Separate risk models for ER subtypes may improve identification of women for targeted prevention strategies.

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.

Purpose

To test the hypothesis that American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) categories for breast density reported by radiologists are lower when digital mammography is used than those reported when film-screen (FS) mammography is used.

Materials and methods

This study was institutional review board approved and HIPAA compliant. Demographic data, risk factors, and BI-RADS breast density categories were collected from five mammography registries that were part of the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Active, passive, or waiver of consent was obtained for all participants. Women aged 40 years and older who underwent at least two screening mammographic examinations less than 36 months apart between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2009, were included. Women with prior breast cancer, augmentation, or use of agents known to affect density were excluded. The main sample included 89 639 women with both FS and digital mammograms. The comparison group included 259 046 women with two FS mammograms and 87 066 women with two digital mammograms. BI-RADS density was cross-tabulated according to the order in which the two types of mammogram were acquired and by the first versus second interpretation.

Results

Regardless of acquisition method, the percentage of women with a change in density from one reading to the next was similar. Breast density was lower in 19.8% of the women who underwent FS before digital mammography and 17.1% of those who underwent digital before FS mammography. Similarly, lower density classifications were reported on the basis of the second mammographic examination regardless of acquisition method (15.8%-19.8%). The percentage of agreement between density readings was similar regardless of mammographic types paired (67.3%-71.0%).

Conclusion

The study results showed no difference in reported BI-RADS breast density categories according to acquisition method. Reported BI-RADS density categories may be useful in the development of breast cancer risk models in which FS, digital, or both acquisition methods are used.

Background Consistency in reporting Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) breast density on mammograms is important because breast density is used for breast cancer risk assessment and is reported directly to women and clinicians to inform decisions about supplemental screening. Purpose To assess the consistency of BI-RADS density reporting between digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and digital mammography (DM) and evaluate density as a breast cancer risk factor when assessed using DM versus DBT. Materials and Methods The Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium is a prospective cohort study of women undergoing mammography with DM or DBT. This secondary analysis included women aged 40-79 years who underwent at least two screening mammography examinations less than 36 months apart. Percentage agreement and κ statistic were estimated for pairs of BI-RADS density assessments. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) of breast density as a risk factor for invasive breast cancer. Results A total of 403 326 pairs of mammograms from 342 149 women were evaluated. There were no significant differences in breast density assessment in pairs consisting of one DM and one DBT examination (57 516 of 74 729 [77%]; κ = 0.64), two DM examinations (238 678 of 301 743 [79%]; κ = 0.67), and two DBT examinations (20 763 of 26 854 [77%]; κ = 0.65). Results were similar when restricting the analyses to pairs read by the same radiologist. The breast cancer HRs for breast density were similar for DM and DBT (P = .45 for interaction). The HRs for density acquired using DM and DBT, respectively, were 0.55 (95% CI: 0.49, 0.63) and 0.37 (95% CI: 0.21, 0.66) for almost entirely fat, 1.47 (95% CI: 1.37, 1.58) and 1.36 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.82) for heterogeneously dense, and 1.72 (95% CI: 1.54, 1.93) and 2.05 (95% CI: 1.25, 3.36) for extremely dense breasts. Conclusion Radiologist reporting of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System density obtained with digital breast tomosynthesis did not differ from that obtained with digital mammography. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Background

Models that predict the risk of estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancers may improve our ability to target chemoprevention. We investigated the contributions of sex hormones to the discrimination of the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) risk model and a polygenic risk score comprised of 83 single nucleotide polymorphisms.

Methods

We conducted a nested case-control study of 110 women with ER-positive breast cancers and 214 matched controls within a mammography screening cohort. Participants were postmenopausal and not on hormonal therapy. The associations of estradiol, estrone, testosterone, and sex hormone binding globulin with ER-positive breast cancer were evaluated using conditional logistic regression. We assessed the individual and combined discrimination of estradiol, the BCSC risk score, and polygenic risk score using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC).

Results

Of the sex hormones assessed, estradiol (OR 3.64, 95% CI 1.64-8.06 for top vs bottom quartile), and to a lesser degree estrone, was most strongly associated with ER-positive breast cancer in unadjusted analysis. The BCSC risk score (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.00-1.75 per 1% increase) and polygenic risk score (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.06-2.36 per standard deviation) were also associated with ER-positive cancers. A model containing the BCSC risk score, polygenic risk score, and estradiol levels showed good discrimination for ER-positive cancers (AUROC 0.72, 95% CI 0.65-0.79), representing a significant improvement over the BCSC risk score (AUROC 0.58, 95% CI 0.50-0.65).

Conclusion

Adding estradiol and a polygenic risk score to a clinical risk model improves discrimination for postmenopausal ER-positive breast cancers.

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.

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.