Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Radiology 10/2020

01-10-2020 | Breast Cancer | Breast

Assessing breast cancer risk within the general screening population: developing a breast cancer risk model to identify higher risk women at mammographic screening

Authors: Mohamed Abdolell, Jennifer I. Payne, Judy Caines, Kaitlyn Tsuruda, Penny J. Barnes, Pam J. Talbot, Olivia Tong, Peter Brown, Michael Rivers-Bowerman, Sian Iles

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 10/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

To develop a breast cancer risk model to identify women at mammographic screening who are at higher risk of breast cancer within the general screening population.

Methods

This retrospective nested case-control study used data from a population-based breast screening program (2009–2015). All women aged 40–75 diagnosed with screen-detected or interval breast cancer (n = 1882) were frequency-matched 3:1 on age and screen-year with women without screen-detected breast cancer (n = 5888). Image-derived risk factors from the screening mammogram (percent mammographic density [PMD], breast volume, age) were combined with core biopsy history, first-degree family history, and other clinical risk factors in risk models. Model performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Classifiers assigning women to low- versus high-risk deciles were derived from risk models. Agreement between classifiers was assessed using a weighted kappa.

Results

The AUC was 0.597 for a risk model including only image-derived risk factors. The successive addition of core biopsy and family history significantly improved performance (AUC = 0.660, p < 0.001 and AUC = 0.664, p = 0.04, respectively). Adding the three remaining risk factors did not further improve performance (AUC = 0.665, p = 0.45). There was almost perfect agreement (kappa = 0.97) between risk assessments based on a classifier derived from image-derived risk factors, core biopsy, and family history compared with those derived from a model including all available risk factors.

Conclusions

Women in the general screening population can be risk-stratified at time of screen using a simple model based on age, PMD, breast volume, and biopsy and family history.

Key Points

• A breast cancer risk model based on three image-derived risk factors as well as core biopsy and first-degree family history can provide current risk estimates at time of screen.
• Risk estimates generated from a combination of image-derived risk factors, core biopsy history, and first-degree family history may be more valid than risk estimates that rely on extensive self-reported risk factors.
• A simple breast cancer risk model can avoid extensive clinical risk factor data collection.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Gail MH, Brinton LA, Byar DP et al (1989) Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst 81:1879–1886CrossRef Gail MH, Brinton LA, Byar DP et al (1989) Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst 81:1879–1886CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Claus EB, Risch N, Thompson WD (1994) Autosomal dominant inheritance of early-onset breast cancer. Implications for risk prediction. Cancer 73:643–651CrossRef Claus EB, Risch N, Thompson WD (1994) Autosomal dominant inheritance of early-onset breast cancer. Implications for risk prediction. Cancer 73:643–651CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Berry DA, Parmigiani G, Sanchez J, Schildkraut J, Winer E (1997) Probability of carrying a mutation of breast-ovarian cancer gene BRCA1 based on family history. J Natl Cancer Inst 89:227–238CrossRef Berry DA, Parmigiani G, Sanchez J, Schildkraut J, Winer E (1997) Probability of carrying a mutation of breast-ovarian cancer gene BRCA1 based on family history. J Natl Cancer Inst 89:227–238CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Antoniou AC, Pharoah PDP, McMullan G et al (2002) A comprehensive model for familial breast cancer incorporating BRCA1, BRCA2 and other genes. Br J Cancer 86:76–83CrossRef Antoniou AC, Pharoah PDP, McMullan G et al (2002) A comprehensive model for familial breast cancer incorporating BRCA1, BRCA2 and other genes. Br J Cancer 86:76–83CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Tyrer J, Duffy SW, Cuzick J (2004) A breast cancer prediction model incorporating familial and personal risk factors. Stat Med 23:1111–1130CrossRef Tyrer J, Duffy SW, Cuzick J (2004) A breast cancer prediction model incorporating familial and personal risk factors. Stat Med 23:1111–1130CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Vilaprinyo E, Forne C, Carles M et al (2014) Cost-effectiveness and harm-benefit analyses of risk-based screening strategies for breast cancer. PLoS One 9:e86858CrossRef Vilaprinyo E, Forne C, Carles M et al (2014) Cost-effectiveness and harm-benefit analyses of risk-based screening strategies for breast cancer. PLoS One 9:e86858CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Schousboe JT, Kerlikowske K, Loh A, Cummings SR (2011) Personalizing mammography by breast density and other risk factors for breast cancer: analysis of health benefits and cost-effectiveness. Ann Intern Med 155:10–20CrossRef Schousboe JT, Kerlikowske K, Loh A, Cummings SR (2011) Personalizing mammography by breast density and other risk factors for breast cancer: analysis of health benefits and cost-effectiveness. Ann Intern Med 155:10–20CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Chiu SYH, Duffy S, Yen AMF, Tabár L, Smith RA, Chen HH (2010) Effect of baseline breast density on breast cancer incidence, stage, mortality, and screening parameters: 25-year follow-up of a Swedish mammographic screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 19:1219–1228CrossRef Chiu SYH, Duffy S, Yen AMF, Tabár L, Smith RA, Chen HH (2010) Effect of baseline breast density on breast cancer incidence, stage, mortality, and screening parameters: 25-year follow-up of a Swedish mammographic screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 19:1219–1228CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Boyd NF, Rommens JM, Vogt K et al (2005) Mammographic breast density as an intermediate phenotype for breast cancer. Lancet Oncol 6:798–808CrossRef Boyd NF, Rommens JM, Vogt K et al (2005) Mammographic breast density as an intermediate phenotype for breast cancer. Lancet Oncol 6:798–808CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Wolfe JN (1976) Risk for breast cancer development determined by mammographic parenchymal pattern. Cancer 37:2486–2492CrossRef Wolfe JN (1976) Risk for breast cancer development determined by mammographic parenchymal pattern. Cancer 37:2486–2492CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Nickson C, Procopio P, Velentzis LS, Carr S, Devereux L, Mann GB (2018) Prospective validation of the NCI breast cancer risk assessment tool (Gail model) on 40,000 Australian women. Breast Cancer Res 20:155CrossRef Nickson C, Procopio P, Velentzis LS, Carr S, Devereux L, Mann GB (2018) Prospective validation of the NCI breast cancer risk assessment tool (Gail model) on 40,000 Australian women. Breast Cancer Res 20:155CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Drieskens S, Demarest S, Bel S, De Ridder K, Tafforeau J (2018) Correction of self-reported BMI based on objective measurements: a Belgian experience. Arch Public Health 76:10CrossRef Drieskens S, Demarest S, Bel S, De Ridder K, Tafforeau J (2018) Correction of self-reported BMI based on objective measurements: a Belgian experience. Arch Public Health 76:10CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Gorber SC, Tremblay MS (2010) The bias in self-reported obesity from 1976 to 2005: a Canada-US comparison. Obesity (Silver Spring) 18:354–361CrossRef Gorber SC, Tremblay MS (2010) The bias in self-reported obesity from 1976 to 2005: a Canada-US comparison. Obesity (Silver Spring) 18:354–361CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Quante AS, Whittemore AS, Shriver T, Strauch K, Terry MB (2012) Breast cancer risk assessment across the risk continuum: genetic and nongenetic risk factors contributing to differential model performance. Breast Cancer Res 14:R144CrossRef Quante AS, Whittemore AS, Shriver T, Strauch K, Terry MB (2012) Breast cancer risk assessment across the risk continuum: genetic and nongenetic risk factors contributing to differential model performance. Breast Cancer Res 14:R144CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Dite GS, MacInnis RJ, Bickerstaffe A et al (2015) Breast cancer risk prediction using clinical models and 77 independent risk-associated SNPs for women aged under 50 years: Australian Breast Cancer Family Registry. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 25:359–365CrossRef Dite GS, MacInnis RJ, Bickerstaffe A et al (2015) Breast cancer risk prediction using clinical models and 77 independent risk-associated SNPs for women aged under 50 years: Australian Breast Cancer Family Registry. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 25:359–365CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Feld SI, Fan J, Yuan M et al (2018) Utility of genetic testing in addition to mammography for determining risk of breast cancer depends on patient age. AMIA Jt Summits Transl Sci Proc 2017:81–90PubMed Feld SI, Fan J, Yuan M et al (2018) Utility of genetic testing in addition to mammography for determining risk of breast cancer depends on patient age. AMIA Jt Summits Transl Sci Proc 2017:81–90PubMed
20.
go back to reference Folse HJ, Green LE, Kress A, Allman R, Dinh TA (2013) Cost-effectiveness of a genetic test for breast cancer risk. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 6:1328–1336CrossRef Folse HJ, Green LE, Kress A, Allman R, Dinh TA (2013) Cost-effectiveness of a genetic test for breast cancer risk. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 6:1328–1336CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Abdolell M, Tsuruda KM, McDougall EE, Iles S, Lightfoot C, Caines J (2015) Towards personalized breast screening protocols: validation of mammographic density estimation from full-field digital mammograms. Insights Imaging 6(Suppl 1):S212 Abdolell M, Tsuruda KM, McDougall EE, Iles S, Lightfoot C, Caines J (2015) Towards personalized breast screening protocols: validation of mammographic density estimation from full-field digital mammograms. Insights Imaging 6(Suppl 1):S212
22.
go back to reference Duffy SW, Morrish OWE, Allgood PC et al (2018) Mammographic density and breast cancer risk in breast screening assessment cases and women with a family history of breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 88:48e56CrossRef Duffy SW, Morrish OWE, Allgood PC et al (2018) Mammographic density and breast cancer risk in breast screening assessment cases and women with a family history of breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 88:48e56CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174CrossRef Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Hanley JA, McNeil BJ (1983) A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology 148:839–843 Hanley JA, McNeil BJ (1983) A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology 148:839–843
25.
go back to reference Obuchowski N, McClish D (1997) Sample size determination for diagnostic accuracy studies involving binormal ROC curve indices. Stat Med 16:1529–1542CrossRef Obuchowski N, McClish D (1997) Sample size determination for diagnostic accuracy studies involving binormal ROC curve indices. Stat Med 16:1529–1542CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Rockhill B, Spiegelman D, Byrne C, Hunter DJ, Colditz GA (2001) Validation of the Gail et al model of breast cancer risk prediction and implications for chemoprevention. J Natl Cancer Inst 93:358–366CrossRef Rockhill B, Spiegelman D, Byrne C, Hunter DJ, Colditz GA (2001) Validation of the Gail et al model of breast cancer risk prediction and implications for chemoprevention. J Natl Cancer Inst 93:358–366CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Brentnall AR, Harkness EF, Astley SM et al (2015) Mammographic density adds accuracy to both the Tyrer-Cuzick and Gail breast cancer risk models in a prospective UK screening cohort. Breast Cancer Res 17:147CrossRef Brentnall AR, Harkness EF, Astley SM et al (2015) Mammographic density adds accuracy to both the Tyrer-Cuzick and Gail breast cancer risk models in a prospective UK screening cohort. Breast Cancer Res 17:147CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Yala A, Lehman C, Schuster T, Portnoi T, Barzilay R (2019) A deep learning mammography-based model for improved breast cancer risk prediction. Radiology 292:60–66CrossRef Yala A, Lehman C, Schuster T, Portnoi T, Barzilay R (2019) A deep learning mammography-based model for improved breast cancer risk prediction. Radiology 292:60–66CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Román M, Hofvind S, von Euler-Chelpin M, Castells X (2019) Long-term risk of screen-detected and interval breast cancer after false-positive results at mammography screening: joint analysis of three national cohorts. Br J Cancer 120:269–275CrossRef Román M, Hofvind S, von Euler-Chelpin M, Castells X (2019) Long-term risk of screen-detected and interval breast cancer after false-positive results at mammography screening: joint analysis of three national cohorts. Br J Cancer 120:269–275CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Astley SM, Harkness EF, Sergeant JC et al (2018) A comparison of five methods of measuring mammographic density: a case-control study. Breast Cancer Res 20:10CrossRef Astley SM, Harkness EF, Sergeant JC et al (2018) A comparison of five methods of measuring mammographic density: a case-control study. Breast Cancer Res 20:10CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Alexeeff SE, Odo NU, McBride R et al (2019) Reproductive factors and mammographic density: associations among 24,840 women and comparison of studies using digitized film-screen mammography and full-field digital mammography. Am J Epidemiol 188:1144–1154 Alexeeff SE, Odo NU, McBride R et al (2019) Reproductive factors and mammographic density: associations among 24,840 women and comparison of studies using digitized film-screen mammography and full-field digital mammography. Am J Epidemiol 188:1144–1154
32.
go back to reference Hudson S, Vik Hjerkind K, Vinnicombe S et al (2018) Adjusting for BMI in analyses of volumetric mammographic density and breast cancer risk. Breast Cancer Res 20:156CrossRef Hudson S, Vik Hjerkind K, Vinnicombe S et al (2018) Adjusting for BMI in analyses of volumetric mammographic density and breast cancer risk. Breast Cancer Res 20:156CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Kayar R, Civelek S, Cobanoglu M, Gungor O, Catal H, Emiroglu M (2011) Five methods of breast volume measurement: a comparative study of measurements of specimen volume in 30 mastectomy cases. Breast Cancer (Auckl) 5:43–52 Kayar R, Civelek S, Cobanoglu M, Gungor O, Catal H, Emiroglu M (2011) Five methods of breast volume measurement: a comparative study of measurements of specimen volume in 30 mastectomy cases. Breast Cancer (Auckl) 5:43–52
34.
go back to reference Payne JI, Caines JS, Gallant J, Foley TJ (2013) A review of interval breast cancers diagnosed among participants of the Nova Scotia Breast Screening Program. Radiology 266:96–103 Payne JI, Caines JS, Gallant J, Foley TJ (2013) A review of interval breast cancers diagnosed among participants of the Nova Scotia Breast Screening Program. Radiology 266:96–103
Metadata
Title
Assessing breast cancer risk within the general screening population: developing a breast cancer risk model to identify higher risk women at mammographic screening
Authors
Mohamed Abdolell
Jennifer I. Payne
Judy Caines
Kaitlyn Tsuruda
Penny J. Barnes
Pam J. Talbot
Olivia Tong
Peter Brown
Michael Rivers-Bowerman
Sian Iles
Publication date
01-10-2020
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 10/2020
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06901-x

Other articles of this Issue 10/2020

European Radiology 10/2020 Go to the issue