Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Breast Cancer Research 5/2014

Open Access 01-10-2014 | Research article

Mammographic breast density refines Tyrer-Cuzick estimates of breast cancer risk in high-risk women: findings from the placebo arm of the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study I

Authors: Jane Warwick, Hanna Birke, Jennifer Stone, Ruth ML Warren, Elizabeth Pinney, Adam R Brentnall, Stephen W Duffy, Anthony Howell, Jack Cuzick

Published in: Breast Cancer Research | Issue 5/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction

Mammographic density is well-established as a risk factor for breast cancer, however, adjustment for age and body mass index (BMI) is vital to its clinical interpretation when assessing individual risk. In this paper we develop a model to adjust mammographic density for age and BMI and show how this adjusted mammographic density measure might be used with existing risk prediction models to identify high-risk women more precisely.

Methods

We explored the association between age, BMI, visually assessed percent dense area and breast cancer risk in a nested case-control study of women from the placebo arm of the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study I (72 cases, 486 controls). Linear regression was used to adjust mammographic density for age and BMI. This adjusted measure was evaluated in a multivariable logistic regression model that included the Tyrer-Cuzick (TC) risk score, which is based on classical breast cancer risk factors.

Results

Percent dense area adjusted for age and BMI (the density residual) was a stronger measure of breast cancer risk than unadjusted percent dense area (odds ratio per standard deviation 1.55 versus 1.38; area under the curve (AUC) 0.62 versus 0.59). Furthermore, in this population at increased risk of breast cancer, the density residual added information beyond that obtained from the TC model alone, with the AUC for the model containing both TC risk and density residual being 0.62 compared to 0.51 for the model containing TC risk alone (P =0.002).
Approximately 16% of controls and 19% of cases moved into the highest risk group (8% or more absolute risk of developing breast cancer within 10 years) when the density residual was taken into account. The net reclassification index was +15.7%.

Conclusions

In women at high risk of breast cancer, adjusting percent mammographic density for age and BMI provides additional predictive information to the TC risk score, which already incorporates BMI, age, family history and other classic breast cancer risk factors. Furthermore, simple selection criteria can be developed using mammographic density, age and BMI to identify women at increased risk in a clinical setting.

Clinical trial registration number

Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference McCormack VA, Dos Santos SI: Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006, 15: 1159-1169. 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-06-0034.CrossRefPubMed McCormack VA, Dos Santos SI: Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006, 15: 1159-1169. 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-06-0034.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Boyd NF, Martin LJ, Sun L, Guo H, Chiarelli A, Hislop G, Yaffe M, Minkin S: Body size, mammographic density, and breast cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006, 15: 2086-2092. 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-06-0345.CrossRefPubMed Boyd NF, Martin LJ, Sun L, Guo H, Chiarelli A, Hislop G, Yaffe M, Minkin S: Body size, mammographic density, and breast cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006, 15: 2086-2092. 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-06-0345.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Hutson SW, Cowen PN, Bird CC: Morphometric studies of age related changes in normal human breast and their significance for evolution of mammary cancer. J Clin Pathol. 1985, 38: 281-287. 10.1136/jcp.38.3.281.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Hutson SW, Cowen PN, Bird CC: Morphometric studies of age related changes in normal human breast and their significance for evolution of mammary cancer. J Clin Pathol. 1985, 38: 281-287. 10.1136/jcp.38.3.281.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
go back to reference Baglietto L, Krishnan K, Stone J, Apicella C, Southey MC, English DR, Hopper JL, Giles GG: Associations of mammographic dense and nondense areas and body mass index with risk of breast cancer. Am J Epidemiol. 2014, 179: 475-483. 10.1093/aje/kwt260.CrossRefPubMed Baglietto L, Krishnan K, Stone J, Apicella C, Southey MC, English DR, Hopper JL, Giles GG: Associations of mammographic dense and nondense areas and body mass index with risk of breast cancer. Am J Epidemiol. 2014, 179: 475-483. 10.1093/aje/kwt260.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Assi V, Warwick J, Cuzick J, Duffy SW: Clinical and epidemiological issues in mammographic density. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2012, 9: 33-40. 10.1038/nrclinonc.2011.173.CrossRef Assi V, Warwick J, Cuzick J, Duffy SW: Clinical and epidemiological issues in mammographic density. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2012, 9: 33-40. 10.1038/nrclinonc.2011.173.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Quante AS, Whittemore AS, Shriver T, Strauch K, Terry MB: Breast cancer risk assessment across the risk continuum: genetic and nongenetic risk factors contributing to differential model performance. Breast Cancer Res. 2012, 14: R144-10.1186/bcr3352.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Quante AS, Whittemore AS, Shriver T, Strauch K, Terry MB: Breast cancer risk assessment across the risk continuum: genetic and nongenetic risk factors contributing to differential model performance. Breast Cancer Res. 2012, 14: R144-10.1186/bcr3352.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
go back to reference Gail MH, Mai PL: Comparing breast cancer risk assessment models. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010, 102: 605-608. 10.1093/jnci/djq141.CrossRef Gail MH, Mai PL: Comparing breast cancer risk assessment models. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010, 102: 605-608. 10.1093/jnci/djq141.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Tice JA, Cummings SR, Ziv E, Kerlikowske K: Mammographic breast density and the Gail model for breast cancer risk prediction in a screening population. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2005, 94: 115-122. 10.1007/s10549-005-5152-4.CrossRefPubMed Tice JA, Cummings SR, Ziv E, Kerlikowske K: Mammographic breast density and the Gail model for breast cancer risk prediction in a screening population. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2005, 94: 115-122. 10.1007/s10549-005-5152-4.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Tice JA, Cummings SR, Smith-Bindman R, Ichikawa L, Barlow WE, Kerlikowske K: Using clinical factors and mammographic density to estimate breast cancer risk: development and validation of a new predictive model. Ann Intern Med. 2008, 148: 337-347. 10.7326/0003-4819-148-5-200803040-00004.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Tice JA, Cummings SR, Smith-Bindman R, Ichikawa L, Barlow WE, Kerlikowske K: Using clinical factors and mammographic density to estimate breast cancer risk: development and validation of a new predictive model. Ann Intern Med. 2008, 148: 337-347. 10.7326/0003-4819-148-5-200803040-00004.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
go back to reference Barlow WE, White E, Ballard-Barbash R, Vacek PM, Titus-Ernstoff L, Carney PA, Tice JA, Buist DS, Geller BM, Rosenberg R, Yankaskas BC, Kerlikowske K: Prospective breast cancer risk prediction model for women undergoing screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006, 98: 1204-1214. 10.1093/jnci/djj331.CrossRefPubMed Barlow WE, White E, Ballard-Barbash R, Vacek PM, Titus-Ernstoff L, Carney PA, Tice JA, Buist DS, Geller BM, Rosenberg R, Yankaskas BC, Kerlikowske K: Prospective breast cancer risk prediction model for women undergoing screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006, 98: 1204-1214. 10.1093/jnci/djj331.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Chen J, Pee D, Ayyagari R, Graubard B, Schairer C, Byrne C, Benichou J, Gail MH: Projecting absolute invasive breast cancer risk in white women with a model that includes mammographic density. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006, 98: 1215-1226. 10.1093/jnci/djj332.CrossRefPubMed Chen J, Pee D, Ayyagari R, Graubard B, Schairer C, Byrne C, Benichou J, Gail MH: Projecting absolute invasive breast cancer risk in white women with a model that includes mammographic density. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006, 98: 1215-1226. 10.1093/jnci/djj332.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Cuzick J, Forbes J, Edwards R, Baum M, Cawthorn S, Coates A, Hamed A, Howell A, Powles T: First results from the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study (IBIS-I): a randomised prevention trial. Lancet. 2002, 360: 817-824. 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)09962-2.CrossRefPubMed Cuzick J, Forbes J, Edwards R, Baum M, Cawthorn S, Coates A, Hamed A, Howell A, Powles T: First results from the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study (IBIS-I): a randomised prevention trial. Lancet. 2002, 360: 817-824. 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)09962-2.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Cuzick J, Forbes JF, Sestak I, Cawthorn S, Hamed H, Holli K, Howell A: Long-term results of tamoxifen prophylaxis for breast cancer - 96-month follow-up of the randomised IBIS-I trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007, 99: 272-282. 10.1093/jnci/djk049.CrossRefPubMed Cuzick J, Forbes JF, Sestak I, Cawthorn S, Hamed H, Holli K, Howell A: Long-term results of tamoxifen prophylaxis for breast cancer - 96-month follow-up of the randomised IBIS-I trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007, 99: 272-282. 10.1093/jnci/djk049.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Cuzick J, Warwick J, Pinney E, Duffy SW, Cawthorn S, Howell A, Forbes JF, Warren RM: Tamoxifen-induced reduction in mammographic density and breast cancer risk reduction: a nested case-control study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011, 103: 744-752. 10.1093/jnci/djr079.CrossRefPubMed Cuzick J, Warwick J, Pinney E, Duffy SW, Cawthorn S, Howell A, Forbes JF, Warren RM: Tamoxifen-induced reduction in mammographic density and breast cancer risk reduction: a nested case-control study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011, 103: 744-752. 10.1093/jnci/djr079.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Tyrer J, Duffy SW, Cuzick J: A breast cancer prediction model incorporating familial and personal risk factors. Stat Med. 2004, 23: 1111-1130. 10.1002/sim.1668.CrossRefPubMed Tyrer J, Duffy SW, Cuzick J: A breast cancer prediction model incorporating familial and personal risk factors. Stat Med. 2004, 23: 1111-1130. 10.1002/sim.1668.CrossRefPubMed
16.
17.
go back to reference Pencina MJ, D’Agostino RB, Steyerberg EW: Extension of net reclassification improvement calculations to measure usefulness of new biomarkers. Stat Med. 2011, 30: 11-21. 10.1002/sim.4085.CrossRefPubMed Pencina MJ, D’Agostino RB, Steyerberg EW: Extension of net reclassification improvement calculations to measure usefulness of new biomarkers. Stat Med. 2011, 30: 11-21. 10.1002/sim.4085.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Krippendorff K: Bivariate agreement coefficients for reliability of data. Sociological Methodology. Edited by: Borgatta EF, Bohrnstedt GW. 1970, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 139-150. Krippendorff K: Bivariate agreement coefficients for reliability of data. Sociological Methodology. Edited by: Borgatta EF, Bohrnstedt GW. 1970, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 139-150.
19.
go back to reference Lin LI: A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics. 1989, 45: 255-268. 10.2307/2532051.CrossRefPubMed Lin LI: A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics. 1989, 45: 255-268. 10.2307/2532051.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Evans DG, Warwick J, Astley SM, Stavrinos P, Sahin S, Ingham S, McBurney H, Eckersley B, Harvie M, Wilson M, Beetles U, Warren R, Hufton A, Sergeant JC, Newman WG, Buchan I, Cuzick J, Howell A: Assessing individual breast cancer risk within the U.K. National Health Service Breast Screening Program: a new paradigm for cancer prevention. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2012, 5: 943-951. 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-11-0458.CrossRef Evans DG, Warwick J, Astley SM, Stavrinos P, Sahin S, Ingham S, McBurney H, Eckersley B, Harvie M, Wilson M, Beetles U, Warren R, Hufton A, Sergeant JC, Newman WG, Buchan I, Cuzick J, Howell A: Assessing individual breast cancer risk within the U.K. National Health Service Breast Screening Program: a new paradigm for cancer prevention. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2012, 5: 943-951. 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-11-0458.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Bondy ML, Newman LA: Assessing breast cancer risk: evolution of the Gail Model. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006, 98: 1172-1173. 10.1093/jnci/djj365.CrossRefPubMed Bondy ML, Newman LA: Assessing breast cancer risk: evolution of the Gail Model. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006, 98: 1172-1173. 10.1093/jnci/djj365.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Mammographic breast density refines Tyrer-Cuzick estimates of breast cancer risk in high-risk women: findings from the placebo arm of the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study I
Authors
Jane Warwick
Hanna Birke
Jennifer Stone
Ruth ML Warren
Elizabeth Pinney
Adam R Brentnall
Stephen W Duffy
Anthony Howell
Jack Cuzick
Publication date
01-10-2014
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Breast Cancer Research / Issue 5/2014
Electronic ISSN: 1465-542X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-014-0451-5

Other articles of this Issue 5/2014

Breast Cancer Research 5/2014 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine