Microcalcifications in benign breast biopsies: association with lesion type and risk.

PURPOSE: To characterize associations of microcalcifications (calcs) with benign breast disease lesion subtypes and assess whether tissue calcs affect risks of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and invasive breast cancer (IBC). METHODS: We analyzed detailed histopathologic data for 4,819 BBD biopsies from a single institution cohort (2002-2013) followed for DCIS or IBC for a median of 7.4 years for cases (N = 338) and 11.2 years for controls. Natural language processing was used to identify biopsies containing calcs based on pathology reports. Univariable and multivariable regression models were applied to assess associations with BBD lesion type and age-adjusted Cox proportional hazard regressions were performed to model risk of IBC or DCIS stratified by the presence or absence of calcs. RESULTS: Calcs were identified in 2063 (42.8%) biopsies. Calcs were associated with older age at BBD diagnosis (56.2 versus 49.0 years; P < 0.001). Overall, the risk of developing IBC or DCIS did not differ significantly between patients with calcs (HR 1.13, 95% CI 0.90, 1.41) as compared to patients without calcs. Stratification by BBD severity or subtype, age at BBD biopsy, outcomes of IBC versus DCIS, and mammography technique (screen-film versus full-field digital mammography) did not significantly alter association between calcs and risk. CONCLUSION: Our analysis of calcs in BBD biopsies did not find a significant association between calcs and risk of breast cancer.

Benign Breast Disease and Breast Cancer Risk in the Percutaneous Biopsy Era.

Importance: Benign breast disease (BBD) comprises approximately 75% of breast biopsy diagnoses. Surgical biopsy specimens diagnosed as nonproliferative (NP), proliferative disease without atypia (PDWA), or atypical hyperplasia (AH) are associated with increasing breast cancer (BC) risk; however, knowledge is limited on risk associated with percutaneously diagnosed BBD. Objectives: To estimate BC risk associated with BBD in the percutaneous biopsy era irrespective of surgical biopsy. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this retrospective cohort study, BBD biopsy specimens collected from January 1, 2002, to December 31, 2013, from patients with BBD at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, were reviewed by 2 pathologists masked to outcomes. Women were followed up from 6 months after biopsy until censoring, BC diagnosis, or December 31, 2021. Exposure: Benign breast disease classification and multiplicity by pathology panel review. Main Outcomes: The main outcome was diagnosis of BC overall and stratified as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or invasive BC. Risk for presence vs absence of BBD lesions was assessed by Cox proportional hazards regression. Risk in patients with BBD compared with female breast cancer incidence rates from the Iowa Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program were estimated. Results: Among 4819 female participants, median age was 51 years (IQR, 43-62 years). Median follow-up was 10.9 years (IQR, 7.7-14.2 years) for control individuals without BC vs 6.6 years (IQR, 3.7-10.1 years) for patients with BC. Risk was higher in the cohort with BBD than in SEER data: BC overall (standard incidence ratio [SIR], 1.95; 95% CI, 1.76-2.17), invasive BC (SIR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.37-1.78), and DCIS (SIR, 3.10; 95% CI, 2.54-3.77). The SIRs increased with increasing BBD severity (1.42 [95% CI, 1.19-1.71] for NP, 2.19 [95% CI, 1.88-2.54] for PDWA, and 3.91 [95% CI, 2.97-5.14] for AH), comparable to surgical cohorts with BBD. Risk also increased with increasing lesion multiplicity (SIR: 2.40 [95% CI, 2.06-2.79] for ≥3 foci of NP, 3.72 [95% CI, 2.31-5.99] for ≥3 foci of PDWA, and 5.29 [95% CI, 3.37-8.29] for ≥3 foci of AH). Ten-year BC cumulative incidence was 4.3% for NP, 6.6% for PDWA, and 14.6% for AH vs an expected population cumulative incidence of 2.9%. Conclusions and Relevance: In this contemporary cohort study of women diagnosed with BBD in the percutaneous biopsy era, overall risk of BC was increased vs the general population (DCIS and invasive cancer combined), similar to that in historical BBD cohorts. Development and validation of pathologic classifications including both BBD severity and multiplicity may enable improved BC risk stratification.

Impact of Artificial Intelligence System and Volumetric Density on Risk Prediction of Interval, Screen-Detected, and Advanced Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms improve breast cancer detection on mammography, but their contribution to long-term risk prediction for advanced and interval cancers is unknown. METHODS: We identified 2,412 women with invasive breast cancer and 4,995 controls matched on age, race, and date of mammogram, from two US mammography cohorts, who had two-dimensional full-field digital mammograms performed 2-5.5 years before cancer diagnosis. We assessed Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System density, an AI malignancy score (1-10), and volumetric density measures. We used conditional logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs), 95% CIs, adjusted for age and BMI, and C-statistics (AUC) to describe the association of AI score with invasive cancer and its contribution to models with breast density measures. Likelihood ratio tests (LRTs) and bootstrapping methods were used to compare model performance. RESULTS: On mammograms between 2-5.5 years prior to cancer, a one unit increase in AI score was associated with 20% greater odds of invasive breast cancer (OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.17 to 1.22; AUC, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.64) and was similarly predictive of interval (OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.27; AUC, 0.63) and advanced cancers (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.16 to 1.31; AUC, 0.64) and in dense (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.15 to 1.22; AUC, 0.66) breasts. AI score improved prediction of all cancer types in models with density measures (PLRT values < .001); discrimination improved for advanced cancer (ie, AUC for dense volume increased from 0.624 to 0.679, Δ AUC 0.065, P = .01) but did not reach statistical significance for interval cancer. CONCLUSION: AI imaging algorithms coupled with breast density independently contribute to long-term risk prediction of invasive breast cancers, in particular, advanced cancer.

Serum hormone levels and normal breast histology among premenopausal women.

PURPOSE: Breast terminal duct lobular units (TDLUs) are the main source of breast cancer (BC) precursors. Higher serum concentrations of hormones and growth factors have been linked to increased TDLU numbers and to elevated BC risk, with variable effects by menopausal status. We assessed associations of circulating factors with breast histology among premenopausal women using artificial intelligence (AI) and preliminarily tested whether parity modifies associations. METHODS: Pathology AI analysis was performed on 316 digital images of H&E-stained sections of normal breast tissues from Komen Tissue Bank donors ages ≤ 45 years to assess 11 quantitative metrics. Associations of circulating factors with AI metrics were assessed using regression analyses, with inclusion of interaction terms to assess effect modification. RESULTS: Higher prolactin levels were related to larger TDLU area (p < 0.001) and increased presence of adipose tissue proximate to TDLUs (p < 0.001), with less significant positive associations for acini counts (p = 0.012), dilated acini (p = 0.043), capillary area (p = 0.014), epithelial area (p = 0.007), and mononuclear cell counts (p = 0.017). Testosterone levels were associated with increased TDLU counts (p < 0.001), irrespective of parity, but associations differed by adipose tissue content. AI data for TDLU counts generally agreed with prior visual assessments. CONCLUSION: Among premenopausal women, serum hormone levels linked to BC risk were also associated with quantitative features of normal breast tissue. These relationships were suggestively modified by parity status and tissue composition. We conclude that the microanatomic features of normal breast tissue may represent a marker of BC risk.

Comparison of breast density assessments between synthesized C-View™ & intelligent 2D™ mammography.

OBJECTIVE: To compare breast density assessments between C-View™ and Intelligent 2D™, different generations of synthesized mammography (SM) from Hologic. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we identified a subset of females between March 2017 and December 2019 who underwent screening digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with C-View followed by DBT with Intelligent 2D. Clinical Breast Imaging Reporting and Database System breast density was obtained along with volumetric breast density measures (including density grade, breast volume, percentage volumetric density, dense volume) using VolparaTM. Differences in density measures by type of synthesized image were calculated using the pairwise t-test or McNemar's test, as appropriate. RESULTS: 67 patients (avg age 62.7; range 40-84) were included with an average of 13.3 months between the two exams. No difference was found in Breast Imaging Reporting and Database System density between the SM reconstructions (p = 0.74). Similarly, there was no difference in VolparaTM mean density grade (p = 0.71), mean breast volume (p = 0.48), mean dense volume (p = 0.43) or mean percent volumetric density (p = 0.12) between the exams. CONCLUSION: We found no significant differences in clinical and automated breast density assessments between these two versions of SM. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Lack of differences in density estimates between the two SM reconstructions is important as density assignment impacts risk stratification and adjunct screening recommendations.

Fully Automated Volumetric Breast Density Estimation from Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.

Background While digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is rapidly replacing digital mammography (DM) in breast cancer screening, the potential of DBT density measures for breast cancer risk assessment remains largely unexplored. Purpose To compare associations of breast density estimates from DBT and DM with breast cancer. Materials and Methods This retrospective case-control study used contralateral DM/DBT studies from women with unilateral breast cancer and age- and ethnicity-matched controls (September 19, 2011-January 6, 2015). Volumetric percent density (VPD%) was estimated from DBT using previously validated software. For comparison, the publicly available Laboratory for Individualized Breast Radiodensity Assessment software package, or LIBRA, was used to estimate area-based percent density (APD%) from raw and processed DM images. The commercial Quantra and Volpara software packages were applied to raw DM images to estimate VPD% with use of physics-based models. Density measures were compared by using Spearman correlation coefficients (r), and conditional logistic regression was performed to examine density associations (odds ratios [OR]) with breast cancer, adjusting for age and body mass index. Results A total of 132 women diagnosed with breast cancer (mean age ± standard deviation [SD], 60 years ± 11) and 528 controls (mean age, 60 years ± 11) were included. Moderate correlations between DBT and DM density measures (r = 0.32-0.75; all P < .001) were observed. Volumetric density estimates calculated from DBT (OR, 2.3 [95% CI: 1.6, 3.4] per SD for VPD%DBT) were more strongly associated with breast cancer than DM-derived density for both APD% (OR, 1.3 [95% CI: 0.9, 1.9] [P < .001] and 1.7 [95% CI: 1.2, 2.3] [P = .004] per SD for LIBRA raw and processed data, respectively) and VPD% (OR, 1.6 [95% CI: 1.1, 2.4] [P = .01] and 1.7 [95% CI: 1.2, 2.6] [P = .04] per SD for Volpara and Quantra, respectively). Conclusion The associations between quantitative breast density estimates and breast cancer risk are stronger for digital breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Yaffe in this issue.

Conformational rearrangements enable iterative backbone N-methylation in RiPP biosynthesis.

Peptide backbone α-N-methylations change the physicochemical properties of amide bonds to provide structural constraints and other favorable characteristics including biological membrane permeability to peptides. Borosin natural product pathways are the only known ribosomally encoded and posttranslationally modified peptides (RiPPs) pathways to incorporate backbone α-N-methylations on translated peptides. Here we report the discovery of type IV borosin natural product pathways (termed 'split borosins'), featuring an iteratively acting α-N-methyltransferase and separate precursor peptide substrate from the metal-respiring bacterium Shewanella oneidensis. A series of enzyme-precursor complexes reveal multiple conformational states for both α-N-methyltransferase and substrate. Along with mutational and kinetic analyses, our results give rare context into potential strategies for iterative maturation of RiPPs.

Mammographic Variation Measures, Breast Density, and Breast Cancer Risk.

OBJECTIVE. Our previous work showed that variation measures, which represent breast architecture derived from mammograms, were significantly associated with breast cancer. For replication purposes, we examined the association of three variation measures (variation [V], which is measured in the image domain, and P1 and p1 [a normalized version of P1], which are derived from restricted regions in the Fourier domain) with breast cancer risk in an independent population. We also compared these measures to volumetric density measures (volumetric percent density [VPD] and dense volume [DV]) from a commercial product. MATERIALS AND METHODS. We examined 514 patients with breast cancer and 1377 control patients from a screening practice who were matched for age, date of examination, mammography unit, facility, and state of residence. Spearman rank-order correlation was used to evaluate the monotonic association between measures. Breast cancer associations were estimated using conditional logistic regression, after adjustment for age and body mass index. Odds ratios were calculated per SD increment in mammographic measure. RESULTS. These variation measures were strongly correlated with VPD (correlation, 0.68-0.80) but not with DV (correlation, 0.31-0.48). Similar to previous findings, all variation measures were significantly associated with breast cancer (odds ratio per SD: 1.30 [95% CI, 1.16-1.46] for V, 1.55 [95% CI, 1.35-1.77] for P1, and 1.51 [95% CI, 1.33-1.72] for p1). Associations of volumetric density measures with breast cancer were similar (odds ratio per SD: 1.54 [95% CI, 1.33-1.78] for VPD and 1.34 [95% CI, 1.20-1.50] for DV). When DV was included with each variation measure in the same model, all measures retained significance. CONCLUSION. Variation measures were significantly associated with breast cancer risk (comparable to the volumetric density measures) but were independent of the DV.

Association of Daily Alcohol Intake, Volumetric Breast Density, and Breast Cancer Risk.

High alcohol intake and breast density increase breast cancer (BC) risk, but their interrelationship is unknown. We examined whether volumetric density modifies and/or mediates the alcohol-BC association. BC cases (n = 2233) diagnosed from 2006 to 2013 in the San Francisco Bay area had screening mammograms 6 or more months before diagnosis; controls (n = 4562) were matched on age, mammogram date, race or ethnicity, facility, and mammography machine. Logistic regression was used to estimate alcohol-BC associations adjusted for age, body mass index, and menopause; interaction terms assessed modification. Percent mediation was quantified as the ratio of log (odds ratios [ORs]) from models with and without density measures. Alcohol consumption was associated with increased BC risk (2-sided P trend = .004), as were volumetric percent density (OR = 1.45 per SD, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.36 to 1.56) and dense volume (OR = 1.30, 95% CI = 1.24 to 1.37). Breast density did not modify the alcohol-BC association (2-sided P > .10 for all). Dense volume mediated 25.0% (95% CI = 5.5% to 44.4%) of the alcohol-BC association (2-sided P = .01), suggesting alcohol may partially increase BC risk by increasing fibroglandular tissue.

Association of mammographic density measures and breast cancer "intrinsic" molecular subtypes.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the association of percent mammographic density (PMD), absolute dense area (DA), and non-dense area (NDA) with risk of "intrinsic" molecular breast cancer (BC) subtypes. METHODS: We pooled 3492 invasive BC and 10,148 controls across six studies with density measures from prediagnostic, digitized film-screen mammograms. We classified BC tumors into subtypes [63% Luminal A, 21% Luminal B, 5% HER2 expressing, and 11% as triple negative (TN)] using information on estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), and tumor grade. We used polytomous logistic regression to calculate odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for density measures (per SD) across the subtypes compared to controls, adjusting for age, body mass index and study, and examined differences by age group. RESULTS: All density measures were similarly associated with BC risk across subtypes. Significant interaction of PMD by age (P = 0.001) was observed for Luminal A tumors, with stronger effect sizes seen for younger women < 45 years (OR = 1.69 per SD PMD) relative to women of older ages (OR = 1.53, ages 65-74, OR = 1.44 ages 75 +). Similar but opposite trends were seen for NDA by age for risk of Luminal A: risk for women: < 45 years (OR = 0.71 per SD NDA) was lower than older women (OR = 0.83 and OR = 0.84 for ages 65-74 and 75 + , respectively) (P < 0.001). Although not significant, similar patterns of associations were seen by age for TN cancers. CONCLUSIONS: Mammographic density measures were associated with risk of all "intrinsic" molecular subtypes. However, findings of significant interactions between age and density measures may have implications for subtype-specific risk models.

Breast Cancer Risk and Use of Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Agents After a Benign Breast Biopsy.

Over one million women in the United States receive biopsy diagnoses of benign breast disease (BBD) each year, which confer a 1.5-4.0-fold increase in breast cancer risk. Studies in the general population suggest that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAID) lower breast cancer risk; however, associations among women with BBD are unknown. We assessed whether NSAID use among women diagnosed with BBD is associated with lower breast cancer risk. Participants included 3,080 women (mean age = 50.3 ± 13.5 years) in the Mayo BBD surgical biopsy cohort diagnosed between January 1, 1992 and December 31, 2001 who completed breast cancer risk factor questionnaires that assessed NSAID use, and whose biopsies underwent detailed pathology review, masked to outcome. Women were followed from date of BBD biopsy to breast cancer diagnosis (main outcome) or censoring (death, prophylactic mastectomy, reduction mammoplasty, lobular carcinoma in situ or last contact). Median follow-up time was 16.4 ± 6.0 years. Incident breast cancer was diagnosed among 312 women over a median follow-up of 9.9 years. Regular non-aspirin NSAID use was associated with lower breast cancer risk [HR = 0.63; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.46-0.85; P = 0.002] with trends of lower risk (highest tertiles of use vs. nonuse) for greater number of years used [HR = 0.55; 95% CI = 0.31-0.97; P trend = 0.003), days used per month (HR = 0.51; 95% CI = 0.33-0.80; P trend = 0.001) and lifetime number of doses taken (HR = 0.53; 95% CI = 0.31-0.89; P trend = 0.003). We conclude that nonaspirin NSAID use is associated with statistically significant lower breast cancer risk after a BBD biopsy, including a dose-response effect, suggesting a potential role for NSAIDs in breast cancer prevention among patients with BBD.

Evaluation of LIBRA Software for Fully Automated Mammographic Density Assessment in Breast Cancer Risk Prediction.

Background The associations of density measures from the publicly available Laboratory for Individualized Breast Radiodensity Assessment (LIBRA) software with breast cancer have primarily focused on estimates from the contralateral breast at the time of diagnosis. Purpose To evaluate LIBRA measures on mammograms obtained before breast cancer diagnosis and compare their performance to established density measures. Materials and Methods For this retrospective case-control study, full-field digital mammograms in for-processing (raw) and for-presentation (processed) formats were obtained (March 2008 to December 2011) in women who developed breast cancer an average of 2 years later and in age-matched control patients. LIBRA measures included absolute dense area and area percent density (PD) from both image formats. For comparison, dense area and PD were assessed by using the research software (Cumulus), and volumetric PD (VPD) and absolute dense volume were estimated with a commercially available software (Volpara). Density measures were compared by using Spearman correlation coefficients (r), and conditional logistic regression (odds ratios [ORs] and 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) was performed to examine the associations of density measures with breast cancer by adjusting for age and body mass index. Results Evaluated were 437 women diagnosed with breast cancer (median age, 62 years ± 17 [standard deviation]) and 1225 matched control patients (median age, 61 years ± 16). LIBRA PD showed strong correlations with Cumulus PD (r = 0.77-0.84) and Volpara VPD (r = 0.85-0.90) (P < .001 for both). For LIBRA, the strongest breast cancer association was observed for PD from processed images (OR, 1.3; 95% CI: 1.1, 1.5), although the PD association from raw images was not significantly different (OR, 1.2; 95% CI: 1.1, 1.4; P = .25). Slightly stronger breast cancer associations were seen for Cumulus PD (OR, 1.5; 95% CI: 1.3, 1.8; processed images; P = .01) and Volpara VPD (OR, 1.4; 95% CI: 1.2, 1.7; raw images; P = .004) compared with LIBRA measures. Conclusion Automated density measures provided by the Laboratory for Individualized Breast Radiodensity Assessment from raw and processed mammograms correlated with established area and volumetric density measures and showed comparable breast cancer associations. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Automated volumetric breast density measures: differential change between breasts in women with and without breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Given that breast cancer and normal dense fibroglandular tissue have similar radiographic attenuation, we examine whether automated volumetric density measures identify a differential change between breasts in women with cancer and compare to healthy controls. METHODS: Eligible cases (n = 1160) had unilateral invasive breast cancer and bilateral full-field digital mammograms (FFDMs) at two time points: within 2 months and 1-5 years before diagnosis. Controls (n = 2360) were matched to cases on age and date of FFDMs. Dense volume (DV) and volumetric percent density (VPD) for each breast were assessed using Volpara™. Differences in DV and VPD between mammograms (median 3 years apart) were calculated per breast separately for cases and controls and their difference evaluated by using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. To simulate clinical practice where cancer laterality is unknown, we examined whether the absolute difference between breasts can discriminate cases from controls using area under the ROC curve (AUC) analysis, adjusting for age, BMI, and time. RESULTS: Among cases, the VPD and DV between mammograms of the cancerous breast decreased to a lesser degree (- 0.26% and - 2.10 cm3) than the normal breast (- 0.39% and - 2.74 cm3) for a difference of 0.13% (p value < 0.001) and 0.63 cm3 (p = 0.002), respectively. Among controls, the differences between breasts were nearly identical for VPD (- 0.02 [p = 0.92]) and DV (0.05 [p = 0.77]). The AUC for discriminating cases from controls using absolute difference between breasts was 0.54 (95% CI 0.52, 0.56) for VPD and 0.56 (95% CI, 0.54, 0.58) for DV. CONCLUSION: There is a small relative increase in volumetric density measures over time in the breast with cancer which is not found in the normal breast. However, the magnitude of this difference is small, and this measure alone does not appear to be a good discriminator between women with and without breast cancer.

Associations of mammographic breast density with breast stem cell marker-defined breast cancer subtypes.

PURPOSE: High mammographic breast density is a strong, well-established breast cancer risk factor. Whether stem cells may explain high breast cancer risk in dense breasts is unknown. We investigated the association between breast density and breast cancer risk by the status of stem cell markers CD44, CD24, and ALDH1A1 in the tumor. METHODS: We included 223 women with primary invasive or in situ breast cancer and 399 age-matched controls from Mayo Clinic Mammography Study. Percent breast density (PD), absolute dense area (DA), and non-dense area (NDA) were assessed using computer-assisted thresholding technique. Immunohistochemical analysis of the markers was performed on tumor tissue microarrays according to a standard protocol. We used polytomous logistic regression to quantify the associations of breast density measures with breast cancer risk across marker-defined tumor subtypes. RESULTS: Of the 223 cancers in the study, 182 were positive for CD44, 83 for CD24 and 52 for ALDH1A1. Associations of PD were not significantly different across t marker-defined subtypes (51% + vs. 11-25%: OR 2.83, 95% CI 1.49-5.37 for CD44+ vs. OR 1.87, 95% CI 0.47-7.51 for CD44-, p-heterogeneity = 0.66; OR 2.80, 95% CI 1.27-6.18 for CD24+ vs. OR 2.44, 95% CI 1.14-5.22 for CD24-, p-heterogeneity = 0.61; OR 3.04, 95% CI 1.14-8.10 for ALDH1A1+ vs. OR 2.57. 95% CI 1.30-5.08 for ALDH1A1-, p-heterogeneity = 0.94). Positive associations of DA and inverse associations of NDA with breast cancer risk were similar across marker-defined subtypes. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence of differential associations of breast density with breast cancer risk by the status of stem cell markers. Further studies in larger study populations are warranted to confirm these associations.

Longitudinal Changes in Volumetric Breast Density in Healthy Women across the Menopausal Transition.

BACKGROUND: Mammographic breast density declines during menopause. We assessed changes in volumetric breast density across the menopausal transition and factors that influence these changes. METHODS: Women without a history of breast cancer, who had full field digital mammograms during both pre- and postmenopausal periods, at least 2 years apart, were sampled from four facilities within the San Francisco Mammography Registry from 2007 to 2013. Dense breast volume (DV) was assessed using Volpara on mammograms across the time period. Annualized change in DV from pre- to postmenopause was estimated using linear mixed models adjusted for covariates and per-woman random effects. Multiplicative interactions were evaluated between premenopausal risk factors and time to determine whether these covariates modified the annualized changes. RESULTS: Among the 2,586 eligible women, 1,802 had one premenopausal and one postmenopausal mammogram, 628 had an additional perimenopausal mammogram, and 156 had two perimenopausal mammograms. Women experienced an annualized decrease in DV [-2.2 cm3 (95% confidence interval, -2.7 to -1.7)] over the menopausal transition. Declines were greater among women with a premenopausal DV above the median (54 cm3) versus below (DV, -3.5 cm3 vs. -1.0 cm3; P < 0.0001). Other breast cancer risk factors, including race, body mass index, family history, alcohol, and postmenopausal hormone therapy, had no effect on change in DV over the menopausal transition. CONCLUSIONS: High premenopausal DV was a strong predictor of greater reductions in DV across the menopausal transition. IMPACT: We found that few factors other than premenopausal density influence changes in DV across the menopausal transition, limiting targeted prevention efforts.

Combined effect of volumetric breast density and body mass index on breast cancer risk.

BACKGROUND: Breast density and body mass index (BMI) are used for breast cancer risk stratification. We evaluate whether the positive association between volumetric breast density and breast cancer risk is strengthened with increasing BMI. METHODS: The San Francisco Mammography Registry and Mayo Clinic Rochester identified 781 premenopausal and 1850 postmenopausal women with breast cancer diagnosed between 2007 and 2015 that had a screening digital mammogram at least 6 months prior to diagnosis. Up to three controls (N = 3535) were matched per case on age, race, date, mammography machine, and state. Volumetric percent density (VPD) and dense volume (DV) were measured with Volpara™. Breast cancer risk was assessed with logistic regression stratified by menopause status. Multiplicative interaction tests assessed whether the association of density measures was differential by BMI categories. RESULTS: The increased risk of breast cancer associated with VPD was strengthened with higher BMI for both premenopausal (pinteraction = 0.01) and postmenopausal (pinteraction = 0.0003) women. For BMI < 25, 25-30, and ≥ 30 kg/m2, ORs for breast cancer for a 1 SD increase in VPD were 1.24, 1.65, and 1.97 for premenopausal, and 1.20, 1.55, and 2.25 for postmenopausal women, respectively. ORs for breast cancer for a 1 SD increase in DV were 1.39, 1.33, and 1.51 for premenopausal (pinteraction = 0.58), and 1.31, 1.34, and 1.65 (pinteraction = 0.03) for postmenopausal women for BMI < 25, 25-30 and ≥ 30 kg/m2, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of volumetric percent density on breast cancer risk is strongest in overweight and obese women. These associations have clinical relevance for informing prevention strategies.

Body mass index, mammographic density, and breast cancer risk by estrogen receptor subtype.

BACKGROUND: Obesity and elevated breast density are common risk factors for breast cancer, and their effects may vary by estrogen receptor (ER) subtype. However, their joint effects on ER subtype-specific risk are unknown. Understanding this relationship could enhance risk stratification for screening and prevention. Thus, we assessed the association between breast density and ER subtype according to body mass index (BMI) and menopausal status. METHODS: We conducted a case-control study nested within two mammography screening cohorts, the Mayo Mammography Health Study and the San Francisco Bay Area Breast Cancer SPORE/San Francisco Mammography Registry. Our pooled analysis contained 1538 ER-positive and 285 ER-negative invasive breast cancer cases and 4720 controls matched on age, menopausal status at time of mammogram, and year of mammogram. Percent density was measured on digitized film mammograms using computer-assisted techniques. We used polytomous logistic regression to evaluate the association between percent density and ER subtype by BMI subgroup (normal/underweight, < 25 kg/m2 versus overweight/obese, ≥ 25 kg/m2). We used Wald chi-squared tests to assess for interactions between percent density and BMI. Our analysis was stratified by menopausal status and hormone therapy usage at the time of index mammogram. RESULTS: Percent density was associated with increased risk of overall breast cancer regardless of menopausal status or BMI. However, when analyzing breast cancer across ER subtype, we found a statistically significant (p = 0.008) interaction between percent density and BMI in premenopausal women only. Specifically, elevated percent density was associated with a higher risk of ER-negative than ER-positive cancer in overweight/obese premenopausal women [OR per standard deviation increment 2.17 (95% CI 1.50-3.16) vs 1.33 (95% CI 1.11-1.61) respectively, Pheterogeneity = 0.01]. In postmenopausal women, elevated percent density was associated with similar risk of ER-positive and ER-negative cancers, and no substantive differences were seen after accounting for BMI or hormone therapy usage. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of overweight/obesity and elevated breast density in premenopausal women is associated with a higher risk of ER-negative compared with ER-positive cancer. Eighteen percent of premenopausal women in the USA have elevated BMI and breast density and may benefit from lifestyle modifications involving weight loss and exercise.

Automated and Clinical Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Density Measures Predict Risk for Screen-Detected and Interval Cancers: A Case-Control Study.

Background: In 30 states, women who have had screening mammography are informed of their breast density on the basis of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) density categories estimated subjectively by radiologists. Variation in these clinical categories across and within radiologists has led to discussion about whether automated BI-RADS density should be reported instead. Objective: To determine whether breast cancer risk and detection are similar for automated and clinical BI-RADS density measures. Design: Case-control. Setting: San Francisco Mammography Registry and Mayo Clinic. Participants: 1609 women with screen-detected cancer, 351 women with interval invasive cancer, and 4409 matched control participants. Measurements: Automated and clinical BI-RADS density assessed on digital mammography at 2 time points from September 2006 to October 2014, interval and screen-detected breast cancer risk, and mammography sensitivity. Results: Of women whose breast density was categorized by automated BI-RADS more than 6 months to 5 years before diagnosis, those with extremely dense breasts had a 5.65-fold higher interval cancer risk (95% CI, 3.33 to 9.60) and a 1.43-fold higher screen-detected risk (CI, 1.14 to 1.79) than those with scattered fibroglandular densities. Associations of interval and screen-detected cancer with clinical BI-RADS density were similar to those with automated BI-RADS density, regardless of whether density was measured more than 6 months to less than 2 years or 2 to 5 years before diagnosis. Automated and clinical BI-RADS density measures had similar discriminatory accuracy, which was higher for interval than screen-detected cancer (c-statistics: 0.70 vs. 0.62 [P < 0.001] and 0.72 vs. 0.62 [P < 0.001], respectively). Mammography sensitivity was similar for automated and clinical BI-RADS categories: fatty, 93% versus 92%; scattered fibroglandular densities, 90% versus 90%; heterogeneously dense, 82% versus 78%; and extremely dense, 63% versus 64%, respectively. Limitation: Neither automated nor clinical BI-RADS density was assessed on tomosynthesis, an emerging breast screening method. Conclusion: Automated and clinical BI-RADS density similarly predict interval and screen-detected cancer risk, suggesting that either measure may be used to inform women of their breast density. Primary Funding Source: National Cancer Institute.

Does mammographic density mediate risk factor associations with breast cancer? An analysis by tumor characteristics.

BACKGROUND: Though mammographic density (MD) has been proposed as an intermediate marker of breast cancer risk, few studies have examined whether the associations between breast cancer risk factors and risk are mediated by MD, particularly by tumor characteristics. METHODS: Our study population included 3392 cases (1105 premenopausal) and 8882 (3192 premenopausal) controls from four case-control studies. For established risk factors, we estimated the percent of the total risk factor association with breast cancer that was mediated by percent MD (secondarily, by dense area and non-dense area) for invasive breast cancer as well as for subtypes defined by the estrogen receptor (ER+/ER-), progesterone receptor (PR+/PR-), and HER2 (HER2+/HER2-). Analyses were conducted separately in pre- and postmenopausal women. RESULTS: Positive associations between prior breast biopsy and risk of invasive breast cancer as well as all subtypes were partially mediated by percent MD in pre- and postmenopausal women (percent mediated = 11-27%, p ≤ 0.02). In postmenopausal women, nulliparity and hormone therapy use were positively associated with invasive, ER+ , PR+ , and HER2- breast cancer; percent MD partially mediated these associations (percent mediated ≥ 31%, p ≤ 0.02). Further, among postmenopausal women, percent MD partially mediated the positive association between later age at first birth and invasive as well as ER+ breast cancer (percent mediated = 16%, p ≤ 0.05). CONCLUSION: Percent MD partially mediated the associations between breast biopsy, nulliparity, age at first birth, and hormone therapy with risk of breast cancer, particularly among postmenopausal women, suggesting that these risk factors at least partially influence breast cancer risk through changes in breast tissue composition.

Tissue-based associations of mammographic breast density with breast stem cell markers.

BACKGROUND: Mammographic breast density is a well-established, strong breast cancer risk factor but the biology underlying this association remains unclear. Breast density may reflect underlying alterations in the size and activity of the breast stem cell pool. We examined, for the first time, associations of CD44, CD24, and aldehyde dehydrogenase family 1 member A1 (ALDH1A1) breast stem cell markers with breast density. METHODS: We included in this study 64 asymptomatic healthy women who previously volunteered for a unique biopsy study of normal breast tissue at the Mayo Clinic (2006-2008). Mammographically identified dense and non-dense areas were confirmed/localized by ultrasound and biopsied. Immunohistochemical analysis of the markers was performed according to a standard protocol and the staining was assessed by a single blinded pathologist. In core biopsy samples retrieved from areas of high vs. low density within the same woman, we compared staining extent and an expression score (the product of staining intensity and extent), using the signed rank test. All tests of statistical significance were two-sided. RESULTS: A total of 64, 28, and 10 women were available for CD44, CD24, and ALDH1A1 staining, respectively. For all three markers, we found higher levels of staining extent in dense as compared to non-dense tissue, though for CD24 and ALDH1A1 the difference did not reach statistical significance (CD44, 6.3% vs. 2.0%, p < 0.001; CD24, 8.0% vs. 5.6%, p = 0.10; and ALDH1A1, 0.5% vs. 0.3%, p = 0.12). The expression score for CD44 was significantly greater in dense as compared to non-dense tissue (9.8 vs.3.0, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest an increased presence and/or activity of stem cells in dense as compared to non-dense breast tissue.