Background: Breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease, divided into subtypes based on the expression of estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). Subtypes have different biology and prognosis, with accumulating evidence of different risk factors. The purpose of this study was to compare breast cancer risk factors across tumor subtypes in a large, diverse mammography population.Methods: Women aged 40–84 without a history of breast cancer with a screening mammogram at three United States health systems from 2006 to 2015 were included. Risk factor questionnaires were completed at mammogram visit, supplemented by electronic health records. Invasive tumor subtype was defined by immunohistochemistry as ER/PR+HER2−, ER/PR+HER2+, ER, and PR−HER2+, or triple‐negative breast cancer (TNBC). Cox proportional hazards models were run for each subtype. Associations of race, reproductive history, prior breast problems, family history, breast density, and body mass index (BMI) were assessed. The association of tumor subtypes with screen detection and interval cancer was assessed using logistic regression among invasive cases.Results: The study population included 198,278 women with a median of 6.5 years of follow‐up (IQR 4.2–9.0 years). There were 4002 invasive cancers, including 3077 (77%) ER/PR+HER2−, 300 (8%) TNBC, 342 (9%) ER/PR+HER2+, and 126 (3%) ER/PR−HER2+ subtype. In multivariate models, Black women had 2.7 times higher risk of TNBC than white women (HR = 2.67, 95% CI 1.99–3.58). Breast density was associated with increased risk of all subtypes. BMI was more strongly associated with ER/PR+HER2− and HER2+ subtypes among postmenopausal women than premenopausal women. Breast density was more strongly associated with ER/PR+HER2− and TNBC among premenopausal than postmenopausal women. TNBC was more likely to be interval cancer than other subtypes.Conclusions: These results have implications for risk assessment and understanding of the etiology of breast cancer subtypes. More research is needed to determine what factors explain the higher risk of TNBC for Black women.

Despite the demonstrated potential of artificial intelligence (AI) in breast cancer risk assessment for personalizing screening recommendations, further validation is required regarding AI model bias and generalizability. We performed external validation on a U.S. screening cohort of a mammography-derived AI breast cancer risk model originally developed for European screening cohorts. We retrospectively identified 176 breast cancers with exams 3 months to 2 years prior to cancer diagnosis and a random sample of 4963 controls from women with at least one-year negative follow-up. A risk score for each woman was calculated via the AI risk model. Age-adjusted areas under the ROC curves (AUCs) were estimated for the entire cohort and separately for White and Black women. The Gail 5-year risk model was also evaluated for comparison. The overall AUC was 0.68 (95% CIs 0.64–0.72) for all women, 0.67 (0.61–0.72) for White women, and 0.70 (0.65–0.76) for Black women. The AI risk model significantly outperformed the Gail risk model for all women p < 0.01 and for Black women p < 0.01, but not for White women p = 0.38. The performance of the mammography-derived AI risk model was comparable to previously reported European validation results; non-significantly different when comparing White and Black women; and overall, significantly higher than that of the Gail model.

(1) Background: The purpose of this study is to compare the performance of four breast cancer risk prediction models by race, molecular subtype, family history of breast cancer, age, and BMI. (2) Methods: Using a cohort of women aged 40–84 without prior history of breast cancer who underwent screening mammography from 2006 to 2015, we generated breast cancer risk estimates using the Breast Cancer Risk Assessment tool (BCRAT), BRCAPRO, Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) and combined BRCAPRO+BCRAT models. Model calibration and discrimination were compared using observed-to-expected ratios (O/E) and the area under the receiver operator curve (AUC) among patients with at least five years of follow-up. (3) Results: We observed comparable discrimination and calibration across models. There was no significant difference in model performance between Black and White women. Model discrimination was poorer for HER2+ and triple-negative subtypes compared with ER/PR+HER2−. The BRCAPRO+BCRAT model displayed improved calibration and discrimination compared to BRCAPRO among women with a family history of breast cancer. Across models, discriminatory accuracy was greater among obese than non-obese women. When defining high risk as a 5-year risk of 1.67% or greater, models demonstrated discordance in 2.9% to 19.7% of patients. (4) Conclusions: Our results can inform the implementation of risk assessment and risk-based screening among women undergoing screening mammography.

Breast density, the amount of fibroglandular versus fatty tissue in the breast, is a strong breast cancer risk factor. Understanding genetic factors associated with breast density may help in clarifying mechanisms by which breast density increases cancer risk. To date, 50 genetic loci have been associated with breast density, however, these studies were performed among predominantly European ancestry populations. We utilized a cohort of women aged 40–85 years who underwent screening mammography and had genetic information available from the Penn Medicine BioBank to conduct a Genome-Wide Association Study (GWAS) of breast density among 1323 women of African ancestry. For each mammogram, the publicly available “LIBRA” software was used to quantify dense area and area percent density. We identified 34 significant loci associated with dense area and area percent density, with the strongest signals in GACAT3, CTNNA3, HSD17B6, UGDH, TAAR8, ARHGAP10, BOD1L2, and NR3C2. There was significant overlap between previously identified breast cancer SNPs and SNPs identified as associated with breast density. Our results highlight the importance of breast density GWAS among diverse populations, including African ancestry populations. They may provide novel insights into genetic factors associated with breast density and help in elucidating mechanisms by which density increases breast cancer risk.

Importance: Although Black women have higher absolute quantitative breast density, they are often assigned lower subjectively determined Breast Imaging and Reporting Data System (BI‐RADS) density scores than White women. Background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) on breast magnetic resonance imaging is independently linked to breast cancer risk and may improve risk stratification for Black and White women. Objective: To evaluate differences in quantitative BPE between Black and White women and determine whether breast cancer risk factors mediate these differences. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross‐sectional study of 1202 women (200 Black, 1002 White; aged 40–74 years) with negative mammograms and no breast cancer history who underwent breast magnetic resonance imaging between 2016 and 2023 at an academic medical center. Exposures: Self‐reported race (Black vs. White). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was automated, quantitative BPE (median BPE and BPE ratio). Covariates included BI‐RADS density, fibroglandular tissue volume, qualitative BPE, age, body mass index, and menopausal status. Results: Fewer Black women were classified as having extremely dense breasts (10% vs. 21%; p < .01), yet similar proportions had high qualitative BPE (35% vs. 29%; p = .29). Quantitative BPE was significantly higher in Black women (median difference, 1.51; standard deviation, 9; 95% CI, 0.13–2.90), independent of covariates. No risk factors mediated this difference. Conclusions and Relevance: Despite lower BI‐RADS density in Black women, as suggested by prior literature, higher quantitative BPE was found, suggesting that BPE captures aspects of breast tissue composition not reflected by density. Future studies can incorporate BPE into risk models, which can improve performance and reduce disparities in risk prediction.