Predictable changes in the accuracy of human papillomavirus tests after vaccination: review with implications for performance monitoring in cervical screening.

Vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) is changing the performance of cytology as a cervical screening test, but its effect on HPV testing is unclear. We review the effect of HPV16/18 vaccination on the epidemiology and the detection of HPV infections and high-grade cervical lesions (CIN2+) to evaluate the likely direction of changes in HPV test accuracy. The reduction in HPV16/18 infections and cross-protection against certain non-16/18 high-risk genotypes, most notably 31, 33, and/or 45, will likely increase the test's specificity but decrease its positive predictive value (PPV) for CIN2+. Post-vaccination viral unmasking of non-16/18 genotypes due to fewer HPV16 co-infections might reduce the specificity and the PPV for CIN2+. Post-vaccination clinical unmasking exposing a higher frequency of CIN2+ related to non-16/18 high-risk genotypes is likely to increase the specificity and the PPV of HPV tests. The effect of HPV16/18 vaccination on HPV test sensitivity is difficult to predict based on these changes alone. Programmes relying on HPV detection for primary screening should monitor the frequency of false-positive and false-negative tests in vaccinated (younger) vs. unvaccinated (older) cohorts, to assess the outcomes and performance of their service.

Long-term prediction by DNA methylation of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: Results of the ARTISTIC cohort.

Methylation markers have shown potential for triaging high-risk HPV-positive (hrHPV+) women to identify those at increased risk of invasive cervical cancer (ICC). Our aim was to assess the performance of the S5 DNA methylation classifier for predicting incident high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and ICC among hrHPV+ women in the ARTISTIC screening trial cohort. The S5 classifier, comprising target regions of tumour suppressor gene EPB41L3 and L1 and L2 regions of HPV16, HPV18, HPV31, and HPV33, was assayed by pyrosequencing in archived hrHPV+ liquid-based samples from 343 women with high-grade disease (139 CIN2, 186 CIN3, and 18 ICC) compared to 800 hrHPV+ controls. S5 DNA methylation correlated directly with increasing severity of disease and inversely with lead time to diagnosis. S5 could discriminate between hrHPV+ women who developed CIN3 or ICC and hrHPV+ controls (p <.0001) using samples taken on average 5 years before diagnosis. This relationship was independent of cytology at baseline. The S5 test showed much higher sensitivity than HPV16/18 genotyping for identifying prevalent CIN3 (93% vs. 61%, p = .01) but lower specificity (50% vs. 66%, p <.0001). The S5 classifier identified most women at high risk of developing precancer and missed very few prevalent advanced lesions thus appearing to be an objective test for triage of hrHPV+ women. The combination of methylation of host and HPV genes enables S5 to combine the predictive power of methylation with HPV genotyping to identify hrHPV-positive women who are at highest risk of developing CIN3 and ICC in the future.

Are better AI algorithms for breast cancer detection also better at predicting risk? A paired case-control study.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing evidence that artificial intelligence (AI) breast cancer risk evaluation tools using digital mammograms are highly informative for 1-6 years following a negative screening examination. We hypothesized that algorithms that have previously been shown to work well for cancer detection will also work well for risk assessment and that performance of algorithms for detection and risk assessment is correlated. METHODS: To evaluate our hypothesis, we designed a case-control study using paired mammograms at diagnosis and at the previous screening visit. The study included n = 3386 women from the OPTIMAM registry, that includes mammograms from women diagnosed with breast cancer in the English breast screening program 2010-2019. Cases were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ at screening and were selected if they had a mammogram available at the screening examination that led to detection, and a paired mammogram at their previous screening visit 3y prior to detection when no cancer was detected. Controls without cancer were matched 1:1 to cases based on age (year), screening site, and mammography machine type. Risk assessment was conducted using a deep-learning model designed for breast cancer risk assessment (Mirai), and three open-source deep-learning algorithms designed for breast cancer detection. Discrimination was assessed using a matched area under the curve (AUC) statistic. RESULTS: Overall performance using the paired mammograms followed the same order by algorithm for risk assessment (AUC range 0.59-0.67) and detection (AUC 0.81-0.89), with Mirai performing best for both. There was also a correlation in performance for risk and detection within algorithms by cancer size, with much greater accuracy for large cancers (30 mm+, detection AUC: 0.88-0.92; risk AUC: 0.64-0.74) than smaller cancers (0 to < 10 mm, detection AUC: 0.73-0.86, risk AUC: 0.54-0.64). Mirai was relatively strong for risk assessment of smaller cancers (0 to < 10 mm, risk, Mirai AUC: 0.64 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.70); other algorithms AUC 0.54-0.56). CONCLUSIONS: Improvements in risk assessment could stem from enhancing cancer detection capabilities of smaller cancers. Other state-of-the-art AI detection algorithms with high performance for smaller cancers might achieve relatively high performance for risk assessment.

Effect of baseline oestradiol serum concentration on the efficacy of anastrozole for preventing breast cancer in postmenopausal women at high risk: a case-control study of the IBIS-II prevention trial.

BACKGROUND: An increased risk of breast cancer is associated with high serum concentrations of oestradiol and testosterone in postmenopausal women, but little is known about how these hormones affect response to endocrine therapy for breast cancer prevention or treatment. We aimed to assess the effects of serum oestradiol and testosterone concentrations on the efficacy of the aromatase inhibitor anastrozole for the prevention of breast cancer in postmenopausal women at high risk. METHODS: In this case-control study we used data from the IBIS-II prevention trial, a randomised, controlled, double-blind trial in postmenopausal women aged 40-70 years at high risk of breast cancer, conducted in 153 breast cancer treatment centres across 18 countries. In the trial, women were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive anastrozole (1 mg/day, orally) or placebo daily for 5 years. In this pre-planned case-control study, the primary analysis was the effect of the baseline oestradiol to sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG) ratio (oestradiol-SHBG ratio) on the development of all breast cancers, including ductal carcinoma in situ (the primary endpoint in the trial). Cases were participants in whom breast cancer was reported after trial entry and until the cutoff on Oct 22, 2019, and who had valid blood samples and no use of hormone replacement therapy within 3 months of trial entry or during the trial. For each case, two controls without breast cancer were selected at random, matched on treatment group, age (within 2 years), and follow-up time (at least that of the matching case). For each treatment group, we applied a multinominal logistic regression likelihood-ratio trend test to assess what change in the proportion of cases was associated with a one-quartile change in hormone ratio. Controls were used only to determine quartile cutoffs. Profile likelihood 95% CIs were used to indicate the precision of estimates. A secondary analysis also investigated the effect of the baseline testosterone-SHBG ratio on breast cancer development. We also assessed relative benefit of anastrozole versus placebo (calculated as 1 - the ratio of breast cancer cases in the anastrozole group to cases in the placebo group). The trial was registered with ISRCTN (number ISRCTN31488319) and completed recruitment on Jan 31, 2012, but long-term follow-up is ongoing. FINDINGS: 3864 women were recruited into the trial between Feb 2, 2003, and Jan 31, 2012, and randomly assigned to receive anastrozole (n=1920) or placebo (n=1944). Median follow-up time was 131 months (IQR 106-156), during which 85 (4·4%) cases of breast cancer in the anastrozole group and 165 (8·5%) in the placebo group were identified. No data on gender, race, or ethnicity were collected. After exclusions, the case-control study included 212 participants from the anastrozole group (72 cases, 140 controls) and 416 from the placebo group (142 cases, 274 controls). A trend of increasing breast cancer risk with increasing oestradiol-SHBG ratio was found in the placebo group (trend per quartile 1·25 [95% CI 1·08 to 1·45], p=0·0033), but not in the anastrozole group (1·06 [0·86 to 1·30], p=0·60). A weaker effect was seen for the testosterone-SHBG ratio in the placebo group (trend 1·21 [1·05 to 1·41], p=0·011), but again not in the anastrozole group (trend 1·18 [0·96 to 1·46], p=0·11). A relative benefit of anastrozole was seen in quartile 2 (0·55 [95% CI 0·13 to 0·78]), quartile 3 (0·54 [0·22 to 0·74], and quartile 4 (0·56 [0·23 to 0·76]) of oestradiol-SHBG ratio, but not in quartile 1 (0·18 [-0·60 to 0·59]). INTERPRETATION: These results suggest that serum hormones should be measured more routinely and integrated into risk management decisions. Measuring serum hormone concentrations is inexpensive and might help clinicians differentiate which women will benefit most from an aromatase inhibitor. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and DaCosta Fund.

Staged design recommendations for validating relative sensitivity of self-sample human papillomavirus tests for cervical screening.

OBJECTIVES: To ensure that the emerging methods for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing on self-collected samples in cervical screening are evaluated robustly. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We assess paired study designs for relative sensitivity of self-collected vs. traditional clinician-collected samples in detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. RESULTS: Designs considered are (D1) both samples at screening, with clinical actions triggered by HPV positivity; (D2) offering a self-sample test to clinician-collected HPV-positive women; (D3) as D2 but using a repeat clinician-sample as comparator; (D4) offering a choice of self- vs. clinician-sampling, and the alternative test in HPV-positive women; (D5) paired samples at referral appointment. D1 is simple to analyze but requires the largest sample size and referral of self-sample positive, clinician-sample negative women. D2 requires a much smaller sample size, and no change to clinical practice, and could be used to rule-in a test because estimates are conservative (against self-sampling). D3 mitigates this bias but requires a second clinician sample. D4 is only manageable where self-sampling already occurs. The liberal D5 might be used to rule-out a self-sampling test. CONCLUSION: A universal recommendation for an optimal study design is challenging. Staged validation might be useful with D5 as a gatekeeper for D1-D4.

Development and evaluation of a method to assess breast cancer risk using a longitudinal history of mammographic density: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Women with dense breasts have an increased risk of breast cancer. However, breast density is measured with variability, which may reduce the reliability and accuracy of its association with breast cancer risk. This is particularly relevant when visually assessing breast density due to variation in inter- and intra-reader assessments. To address this issue, we developed a longitudinal breast density measure which uses an individual woman's entire history of mammographic density, and we evaluated its association with breast cancer risk as well as its predictive ability. METHODS: In total, 132,439 women, aged 40-73 yr, who were enrolled in Kaiser Permanente Washington and had multiple screening mammograms taken between 1996 and 2013 were followed up for invasive breast cancer through 2014. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) density was assessed at each screen. Continuous and derived categorical longitudinal density measures were developed using a linear mixed model that allowed for longitudinal density to be updated at each screen. Predictive ability was assessed using (1) age and body mass index-adjusted hazard ratios (HR) for breast density (time-varying covariate), (2) likelihood-ratio statistics (ΔLR-χ2) and (3) concordance indices. RESULTS: In total, 2704 invasive breast cancers were diagnosed during follow-up (median = 5.2 yr; median mammograms per woman = 3). When compared with an age- and body mass index-only model, the gain in statistical information provided by the continuous longitudinal density measure was 23% greater than that provided by BI-RADS density (follow-up after baseline mammogram: ΔLR-χ2 = 379.6 (degrees of freedom (df) = 2) vs. 307.7 (df = 3)), which increased to 35% (ΔLR-χ2 = 251.2 vs. 186.7) for follow-up after three mammograms (n = 76,313, 2169 cancers). There was a sixfold difference in observed risk between densest and fattiest eight-category longitudinal density (HR = 6.3, 95% CI 4.7-8.7), versus a fourfold difference with BI-RADS density (HR = 4.3, 95% CI 3.4-5.5). Discriminatory accuracy was marginally greater for longitudinal versus BI-RADS density (c-index = 0.64 vs. 0.63, mean difference = 0.008, 95% CI 0.003-0.012). CONCLUSIONS: Estimating mammographic density using a woman's history of breast density is likely to be more reliable than using the most recent observation only, which may lead to more reliable and accurate estimates of individual breast cancer risk. Longitudinal breast density has the potential to improve personal breast cancer risk estimation in women attending mammography screening.

An optimization framework to guide the choice of thresholds for risk-based cancer screening.

It is uncommon for risk groups defined by statistical or artificial intelligence (AI) models to be chosen by jointly considering model performance and potential interventions available. We develop a framework to rapidly guide choice of risk groups in this manner, and apply it to guide breast cancer screening intervals using an AI model. Linear programming is used to define risk groups that minimize expected advanced cancer incidence subject to resource constraints. In the application risk stratification performance is estimated from a case-control study (2044 cases, 1:1 matching), and other parameters are taken from screening trials and the screening programme in England. Under the model, re-screening in 1 year for the highest 4% AI model risk, in 3 years for the middle 64%, and in 4 years for 32% of the population at lowest risk, was expected to reduce the number of advanced cancers diagnosed by approximately 18 advanced cancers per 1000 diagnosed with triennial screening, for the same average number of screens in the population as triennial screening for all. Sensitivity analyses found the choice of thresholds was robust to model parameters, but the estimated reduction in advanced cancers was not precise and requires further evaluation. Our framework helps define thresholds with the greatest chance of success for reducing the population health burden of cancer when used in risk-adapted screening, which should be further evaluated such as in health-economic modelling based on computer simulation models, and real-world evaluations.

Safety and efficacy of artesunate treatment in severely injured patients with traumatic hemorrhage. The TOP-ART randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: This study aimed at determining whether intravenous artesunate is safe and effective in reducing multiple organ dysfunction syndrome in trauma patients with major hemorrhage. METHODS: TOP-ART, a randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled, phase IIa trial, was conducted at a London major trauma center in adult trauma patients who activated the major hemorrhage protocol. Participants received artesunate or placebo (2:1 randomization ratio) as an intravenous bolus dose (2.4 mg/kg or 4.8 mg/kg) within 4 h of injury. The safety outcome was the 28-day serious adverse event (SAE) rate. The primary efficacy outcome was the 48 h sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score. The per-protocol recruitment target was 105 patients. RESULTS: The trial was terminated after enrolment of 90 patients because of safety concerns. Eighty-three participants received artesunate (n = 54) or placebo (n = 29) and formed the safety population and 75 met per-protocol criteria (48 artesunate, 27 placebo). Admission characteristics were similar between groups (overall 88% male, median age 29 years, median injury severity score 22), except participants who received artesunate were more shocked (median base deficit 9 vs. 4.7, p = 0.042). SAEs occurred in 17 artesunate participants (31%) vs. 5 who received placebo (17%). Venous thromboembolic events (VTE) occurred in 9 artesunate participants (17%) vs. 1 who received placebo (3%). Superiority of artesunate was not supported by the 48 h SOFA score (median 5.5 artesunate vs. 4 placebo, p = 0.303) or any of the trial's secondary endpoints. CONCLUSION: Among critically ill trauma patients, artesunate is unlikely to improve organ dysfunction and might be associated with a higher VTE rate.

Evaluation of an AI Model to Assess Future Breast Cancer Risk.

Background Accurate breast cancer risk assessment after a negative screening result could enable better strategies for early detection. Purpose To evaluate a deep learning algorithm for risk assessment based on digital mammograms. Materials and Methods A retrospective observational matched case-control study was designed using the OPTIMAM Mammography Image Database from the National Health Service Breast Screening Programme in the United Kingdom from February 2010 to September 2019. Patients with breast cancer (cases) were diagnosed following a mammographic screening or between two triannual screening rounds. Controls were matched based on mammography device, screening site, and age. The artificial intelligence (AI) model only used mammograms at screening before diagnosis. The primary objective was to assess model performance, with a secondary objective to assess heterogeneity and calibration slope. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was estimated for 3-year risk. Heterogeneity according to cancer subtype was assessed using a likelihood ratio interaction test. Statistical significance was set at P < .05. Results Analysis included patients with screen-detected (median age, 60 years [IQR, 55-65 years]; 2044 female, including 1528 with invasive cancer and 503 with ductal carcinoma in situ [DCIS]) or interval (median age, 59 years [IQR, 53-65 years]; 696 female, including 636 with invasive cancer and 54 with DCIS) breast cancer and 1:1 matched controls, each with a complete set of mammograms at the screening preceding diagnosis. The AI model had an overall AUC of 0.68 (95% CI: 0.66, 0.70), with no evidence of a significant difference between interval and screen-detected (AUC, 0.69 vs 0.67; P = .085) cancer. The calibration slope was 1.13 (95% CI: 1.01, 1.26). There was similar performance for the detection of invasive cancer versus DCIS (AUC, 0.68 vs 0.66; P = .057). The model had higher performance for advanced cancer risk (AUC, 0.72 ≥stage II vs 0.66

Dynamic data-enabled stratified sampling for trial invitations with application in NHS-Galleri.

BACKGROUND: Participants of health research studies such as cancer screening trials usually have better health than the target population. Data-enabled recruitment strategies might be used to help minimise healthy volunteer effects on study power and improve equity. METHODS: A computer algorithm was developed to help target trial invitations. It assumes participants are recruited from distinct sites (such as different physical locations or periods in time) that are served by clusters (such as general practitioners in England, or geographical areas), and the population may be split into defined groups (such as age and sex bands). The problem is to decide the number of people to invite from each group, such that all recruitment slots are filled, healthy volunteer effects are accounted for, and equity is achieved through representation in sufficient numbers of all major societal and ethnic groups. A linear programme was formulated for this problem. RESULTS: The optimisation problem was solved dynamically for invitations to the NHS-Galleri trial (ISRCTN91431511). This multi-cancer screening trial aimed to recruit 140,000 participants from areas in England over 10 months. Public data sources were used for objective function weights, and constraints. Invitations were sent by sampling according to lists generated by the algorithm. To help achieve equity the algorithm tilts the invitation sampling distribution towards groups that are less likely to join. To mitigate healthy volunteer effects, it requires a minimum expected event rate of the primary outcome in the trial. CONCLUSION: Our invitation algorithm is a novel data-enabled approach to recruitment that is designed to address healthy volunteer effects and inequity in health research studies. It could be adapted for use in other trials or research studies.

Quantifying the effects of risk-stratified breast cancer screening when delivered in real time as routine practice versus usual screening: the BC-Predict non-randomised controlled study (NCT04359420).

BACKGROUND: Risk stratification as a routine part of the NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) could provide a better balance of benefits and harms. We developed BC-Predict, to offer women when invited to the NHSBSP, which collects standard risk factor information; mammographic density; and in a sub-sample, a Polygenic Risk Score (PRS). METHODS: Risk prediction was estimated primarily from self-reported questionnaires and mammographic density using the Tyrer-Cuzick risk model. Women eligible for NHSBSP were recruited. BC-Predict produced risk feedback letters, inviting women at high risk (≥8% 10-year) or moderate risk (≥5-<8% 10-year) to have appointments to discuss prevention and additional screening. RESULTS: Overall uptake of BC-Predict in screening attendees was 16.9% with 2472 consenting to the study; 76.8% of those received risk feedback within the 8-week timeframe. Recruitment was 63.2% with an onsite recruiter and paper questionnaire compared to <10% with BC-Predict only (P < 0.0001). Risk appointment attendance was highest for those at high risk (40.6%); 77.5% of those opted for preventive medication. DISCUSSION: We have shown that a real-time offer of breast cancer risk information (including both mammographic density and PRS) is feasible and can be delivered in reasonable time, although uptake requires personal contact. Preventive medication uptake in women newly identified at high risk is high and could improve the cost-effectiveness of risk stratification. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospectively registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04359420).

Breast cancer polygenic risk scores derived in White European populations are not calibrated for women of Ashkenazi Jewish descent.

PURPOSE: Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) are a major component of accurate breast cancer (BC) risk prediction but require ethnicity-specific calibration. Ashkenazi Jewish (AJ) population is assumed to be of White European (WE) origin in some commercially available PRSs despite differing effect allele frequencies (EAFs). We conducted a case-control study of WE and AJ women from the Predicting Risk of Cancer at Screening Study. The Breast Cancer in Northern Israel Study provided a separate AJ population-based case-control validation series. METHODS: All women underwent Illumina OncoArray single-nucleotide variation (SNV; formerly single-nucleotide polymorphism [SNP]) analysis. Two PRSs were assessed, SNV142 and SNV78. A total of 221 of 2243 WE women (discovery: cases = 111; controls = 110; validation: cases = 651; controls = 1772) and 221 AJ women (cases = 121; controls = 110) were included from the UK study; the Israeli series consisted of 2045 AJ women (cases = 1331; controls = 714). EAFs were obtained from the Genome Aggregation Database. RESULTS: In the UK study, the mean SNV142 PRS demonstrated good calibration and discrimination in WE population, with mean PRS of 1.33 (95% CI 1.18-1.48) in cases and 1.01 (95% CI 0.89-1.13) in controls. In AJ women from Manchester, the mean PRS of 1.54 (1.38-1.70) in cases and 1.20 (1.08-1.32) in controls demonstrated good discrimination but overestimation of BC relative risk. After adjusting for EAFs for the AJ population, mean risk was corrected (mean SNV142 PRS cases = 1.30 [95% CI 1.16-1.44] and controls = 1.02 [95% CI 0.92-1.12]). This was recapitulated in the larger Israeli data set with good discrimination (area under the curve = 0.632 [95% CI 0.607-0.657] for SNV142). CONCLUSION: AJ women should not be given BC relative risk predictions based on PRSs calibrated to EAFs from the WE population. PRSs need to be recalibrated using AJ-derived EAFs. A simple recalibration using the mean PRS adjustment ratio likely performs well.

Impact of Multiple COVID-19 Waves on Gynaecological Cancer Services in the UK.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess the impact of multiple COVID-19 waves on UK gynaecological-oncology services. METHODS: An online survey was distributed to all UK-British-Gynaecological-Cancer-Society members during three COVID-19 waves from 2020 to2022. RESULTS: In total, 51 hospitals (including 32 cancer centres) responded to Survey 1, 42 hospitals (29 centres) to Survey 2, and 39 hospitals (30 centres) to Survey 3. During the first wave, urgent referrals reportedly fell by a median of 50% (IQR = 25-70%). In total, 49% hospitals reported reduced staffing, and the greatest was noted for trainee doctors, by a median of 40%. Theatre capacity was reduced by a median of 40%. A median of 30% of planned operations was postponed. Multidisciplinary meetings were completely virtual in 39% and mixed in 65% of the total. A median of 75% of outpatient consultations were remote. By the second wave, fewer hospitals reported staffing reductions, and there was a return to pre-pandemic urgent referrals and multidisciplinary workloads. Theatre capacity was reduced by a median of 10%, with 5% of operations postponed. The third wave demonstrated worsening staff reductions similar to Wave 1, primarily from sickness. Pre-pandemic levels of urgent referrals/workload continued, with little reduction in surgical capacity. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 led to a significant disruption of gynaecological-cancer care across the UK, including reduced staffing, urgent referrals, theatre capacity, and working practice changes. Whilst disruption eased and referrals/workloads returned to normal, significant staff shortages remained in 2022, highlighting persistent capacity constraints.

Variability Among Breast Cancer Risk Classification Models When Applied at the Level of the Individual Woman.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer risk models guide screening and chemoprevention decisions, but the extent and effect of variability among models, particularly at the individual level, is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the accuracy and disagreement between commonly used risk models in categorizing individual women as average vs. high risk for developing invasive breast cancer. DESIGN: Comparison of three risk prediction models: Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRAT), Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) model, and International Breast Intervention Study (IBIS) model. SUBJECTS: Women 40 to 74 years of age presenting for screening mammography at a multisite health system between 2011 and 2015, with 5-year follow-up for cancer outcome. MAIN MEASURES: Comparison of model discrimination and calibration at the population level and inter-model agreement for 5-year breast cancer risk at the individual level using two cutoffs (≥ 1.67% and ≥ 3.0%). KEY RESULTS: A total of 31,115 women were included. When using the ≥ 1.67% threshold, more than 21% of women were classified as high risk for developing breast cancer in the next 5 years by one model, but average risk by another model. When using the ≥ 3.0% threshold, more than 5% of women had disagreements in risk severity between models. Almost half of the women (46.6%) were classified as high risk by at least one of the three models (e.g., if all three models were applied) for the threshold of ≥ 1.67%, and 11.1% were classified as high risk for ≥ 3.0%. All three models had similar accuracy at the population level. CONCLUSIONS: Breast cancer risk estimates for individual women vary substantially, depending on which risk assessment model is used. The choice of cutoff used to define high risk can lead to adverse effects for screening, preventive care, and quality of life for misidentified individuals. Clinicians need to be aware of the high false-positive and false-negative rates and variation between models when talking with patients.

Supporting the implementation of new healthcare technologies by investigating generalisability of pilot studies using area-level statistics.

BACKGROUND: Implementation of new technologies into national health care systems requires careful capacity planning. This is sometimes informed by data from pilot studies that implement the technology on a small scale in selected areas. A critical consideration when using implementation pilot studies for capacity planning in the wider system is generalisability. We studied the feasibility of using publicly available national statistics to determine the degree to which results from a pilot might generalise for non-pilot areas, using the English human papillomavirus (HPV) cervical screening pilot as an exemplar. METHODS: From a publicly available source on population indicators in England ("Public Health Profiles"), we selected seven area-level indicators associated with cervical cancer incidence, to produce a framework for post-hoc pilot generalisability analysis. We supplemented these data by those from publicly available English Office for National Statistics modules. We compared pilot to non-pilot areas, and pilot regimens (pilot areas using the previous standard of care (cytology) vs. the new screening test (HPV)). For typical process indicators that inform real-world capacity planning in cancer screening, we used standardisation to re-weight the values directly observed in the pilot, to better reflect the wider population. A non-parametric quantile bootstrap was used to calculate 95% confidence intervals (CI) for differences in area-weighted means for indicators. RESULTS: The range of area-level statistics in pilot areas covered most of the spectrum observed in the wider population. Pilot areas were on average more deprived than non-pilot areas (average index of multiple deprivation 24.8 vs. 21.3; difference: 3.4, 95% CI: 0.2-6.6). Participants in HPV pilot areas were less deprived than those in cytology pilot areas, matching area-level statistics. Differences in average values of the other six indicators were less pronounced. The observed screening process indicators showed minimal change after standardisation for deprivation. CONCLUSIONS: National statistical sources can be helpful in establishing the degree to which the types of areas outside pilot studies are represented, and the extent to which they match selected characteristics of the rest of the health care system ex-post. Our analysis lends support to extrapolation of process indicators from the HPV screening pilot across England.

Breast cancer risk stratification in women of screening age: Incremental effects of adding mammographic density, polygenic risk, and a gene panel.

PURPOSE: There is great promise in breast cancer risk stratification to target screening and prevention. It is unclear whether adding gene panels to other risk tools improves breast cancer risk stratification and adds discriminatory benefit on a population basis. METHODS: In total, 10,025 of 57,902 women aged 46 to 73 years in the Predicting Risk of Cancer at Screening study provided DNA samples. A case-control study was used to evaluate breast cancer risk assessment using polygenic risk scores (PRSs), cancer gene panel (n = 33), mammographic density (density residual [DR]), and risk factors collected using a self-completed 2-page questionnaire (Tyrer-Cuzick [TC] model version 8). In total, 525 cases and 1410 controls underwent gene panel testing and PRS calculation (18, 143, and/or 313 single-nucleotide polymorphisms [SNPs]). RESULTS: Actionable pathogenic variants (PGVs) in BRCA1/2 were found in 1.7% of cases and 0.55% of controls, and overall PGVs were found in 6.1% of cases and 1.3% of controls. A combined assessment of TC8-DR-SNP313 and gene panel provided the best risk stratification with 26.1% of controls and 9.7% of cases identified at <1.4% 10-year risk and 9.01% of controls and 23.3% of cases at ≥8% 10-year risk. Because actionable PGVs were uncommon, discrimination was identical with/without gene panel (with/without: area under the curve = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.64-0.70). Only 7 of 17 PGVs in cases resulted in actionable risk category change. Extended case (n = 644)-control (n = 1779) series with TC8-DR-SNP143 identified 18.9% of controls and only 6.4% of stage 2+ cases at <1.4% 10-year risk and 20.7% of controls and 47.9% of stage 2+ cases at ≥5% 10-year risk. CONCLUSION: Further studies and economic analysis will determine whether adding panels to PRS is a cost-effective strategy for risk stratification.

Mammographic density, endocrine therapy and breast cancer risk: a prognostic and predictive biomarker review.

BACKGROUND: Endocrine therapy is effective at preventing or treating breast cancer. Some forms of endocrine therapy have been shown to reduce mammographic density. Reduced mammographic density for women receiving endocrine therapy could be used to estimate the chance of breast cancer returning or developing breast cancer in the first instance (a prognostic biomarker). In addition, changes in mammographic density might be able to predict how well a woman responds to endocrine therapy (a predictive biomarker). The role of breast density as a prognostic or predictive biomarker could help improve the management of breast cancer. OBJECTIVES: To assess the evidence that a reduction in mammographic density following endocrine therapy for breast cancer prevention in women without previous breast cancer, or for treatment in women with early-stage hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, is a prognostic or predictive biomarker. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers on 3 August 2020 along with reference checking, bibliographic searching, and contact with study authors to obtain further data. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised, cohort and case-control studies of adult women with or without breast cancer receiving endocrine therapy. Endocrine therapy agents included were selective oestrogen receptor modulators and aromatase inhibitors. We required breast density before start of endocrine therapy and at follow-up. We included studies published in English. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias using adapted Quality in Prognostic Studies (QUIPS) and Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tools. We used the GRADE approach to evaluate the certainty of the evidence. We did not perform a quantitative meta-analysis due to substantial heterogeneity across studies. MAIN RESULTS: Eight studies met our inclusion criteria, of which seven provided data on outcomes listed in the protocol (5786 women). There was substantial heterogeneity across studies in design, sample size (349 to 1066 women), participant characteristics, follow-up (5 to 14 years), and endocrine therapy agent. There were five breast density measures and six density change definitions. All studies had at least one domain as at moderate or high risk of bias. Common concerns were whether the study sample reflected the review target population, and likely post hoc definitions of breast density change. Most studies on prognosis for women receiving endocrine therapy reported a reduced risk associated with breast density reduction. Across endpoints, settings, and agents, risk ratio point estimates (most likely value) were between 0.1 and 1.5, but with substantial uncertainty. There was greatest consistency in the direction and magnitude of the effect for tamoxifen (across endpoints and settings, risk ratio point estimates were between 0.3 and 0.7). The findings are summarised as follows. Prognostic biomarker findings: Treatment Breast cancer mortality Two studies of 823 women on tamoxifen (172 breast cancer deaths) reported risk ratio point estimates of ~0.4 and ~0.5 associated with a density reduction. The certainty of the evidence was low. Recurrence Two studies of 1956 women on tamoxifen reported risk ratio point estimates of ~0.4 and ~0.7 associated with a density reduction. There was risk of bias in methodology for design and analysis of the studies and considerable uncertainty over the size of the effect. One study of 175 women receiving an aromatase inhibitor reported a risk ratio point estimate of ~0.1 associated with a density reduction. There was considerable uncertainty about the effect size and a moderate or high risk of bias in all domains. One study of 284 women receiving exemestane or tamoxifen as part of a randomised controlled trial reported risk ratio point estimates of ~1.5 (loco-regional recurrence) and ~1.3 (distance recurrence) associated with a density reduction. There was risk of bias in reporting and study confounding, and uncertainty over the size of the effects. The certainty of the evidence for all recurrence endpoints was very low. Incidence of a secondary primary breast cancer Two studies of 451 women on exemestane, tamoxifen, or unknown endocrine therapy reported risk ratio point estimates of ~0.5 and ~0.6 associated with a density reduction. There was risk of bias in reporting and study confounding, and uncertainty over the effect size. The certainty of the evidence was very low. We were unable to find data regarding the remaining nine outcomes prespecified in the review protocol. Prevention Incidence of invasive breast cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) One study of 507 women without breast cancer who were receiving preventive tamoxifen as part of a randomised controlled trial (51 subsequent breast cancers) reported a risk ratio point estimate of ~0.3 associated with a density reduction. The certainty of the evidence was low. Predictive biomarker findings: One study of a subset of 1065 women from a randomised controlled trial assessed how much the effect of endocrine therapy could be explained by breast density declines in those receiving endocrine therapy. This study evaluated the prevention of invasive breast cancer and DCIS. We found some evidence to support the hypothesis, with a risk ratio interaction point estimate ~0.5. However, the 95% confidence interval included unity, and data were based on 51 women with subsequent breast cancer in the tamoxifen group. The certainty of the evidence was low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is low-/very low-certainty evidence to support the hypothesis that breast density change following endocrine therapy is a prognostic biomarker for treatment or prevention. Studies suggested a potentially large effect size with tamoxifen, but the evidence was limited. There was less evidence that breast density change following tamoxifen preventive therapy is a predictive biomarker than prognostic biomarker. Evidence for breast density change as a prognostic treatment biomarker was stronger for tamoxifen than aromatase inhibitors. There were no studies reporting mammographic density change following endocrine therapy as a predictive biomarker in the treatment setting, nor aromatase inhibitor therapy as a prognostic or predictive biomarker in the preventive setting. Further research is warranted to assess mammographic density as a biomarker for all classes of endocrine therapy and review endpoints.