Introduction: Mammography screening results in a significant number of false-positives. The use of pretest breast cancer risk factors to guide follow-up of abnormal mammograms could improve the positive predictive value of screening. We evaluated the use of the Gail model, body mass index (BMI), and genetic markers to predict cancer diagnosis among women with abnormal mammograms. We also examined the extent to which pretest risk factors could reclassify women without cancer below the biopsy threshold. Methods: We recruited a prospective cohort of women referred for biopsy with abnormal (BI-RADS 4) mammograms according to the American College of Radiology’s Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). Breast cancer risk factors were assessed prior to biopsy. A validated panel of 12 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with breast cancer were measured. Logistic regression was used to assess the association of Gail risk factors, BMI and SNPs with cancer diagnosis (invasive or ductal carcinoma in situ). Model discrimination was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, and calibration was assessed using the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test. The distribution of predicted probabilities of a cancer diagnosis were compared for women with or without breast cancer. Results: In the multivariate model, age (odds ratio (OR) = 1.05; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.03 to 1.08; P < 0.001), SNP panel relative risk (OR = 2.30; 95% CI, 1.06 to 4.99, P = 0.035) and BMI (≥30 kg/m² versus <25 kg/m²; OR = 2.20; 95% CI, 1.05 to 4.58; P = 0.036) were significantly associated with breast cancer diagnosis. Older women were more likely than younger women to be diagnosed with breast cancer. The SNP panel relative risk remained strongly associated with breast cancer diagnosis after multivariable adjustment. Higher BMI was also strongly associated with increased odds of a breast cancer diagnosis. Obese women (OR = 2.20; 95% CI, 1.05 to 4.58; P = 0.036) had more than twice the odds of cancer diagnosis compared to women with a BMI <25 kg/m². The SNP panel appeared to have predictive ability among both white and black women. Conclusions: Breast cancer risk factors, including BMI and genetic markers, are predictive of cancer diagnosis among women with BI-RADS 4 mammograms. Using pretest risk factors to guide follow-up of abnormal mammograms could reduce the burden of false-positive mammograms.

Breast density, commonly quantified as the percentage of mammographically dense tissue area, is a strong breast cancer risk factor. We investigated associations between breast cancer and fully automated measures of breast density made by a new publicly available software tool, the Laboratory for Individualized Breast Radiodensity Assessment (LIBRA). Digital mammograms from 106 invasive breast cancer cases and 318 age-matched controls were retrospectively analyzed. Density estimates acquired by LIBRA were compared with commercially available software and standard Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) density estimates. Associations between the different density measures and breast cancer were evaluated by using logistic regression after adjustment for Gail risk factors and body mass index (BMI). Area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) was used to assess discriminatory capacity, and odds ratios (ORs) for each density measure are provided. All automated density measures had a significant association with breast cancer (OR = 1.47–2.23, AUC = 0.59–0.71, P < 0.01) which was strengthened after adjustment for Gail risk factors and BMI (OR = 1.96–2.64, AUC = 0.82–0.85, P < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, absolute dense area (OR = 1.84, P < 0.001) and absolute dense volume (OR = 1.67, P = 0.003) were jointly associated with breast cancer (AUC = 0.77, P < 0.01), having a larger discriminatory capacity than models considering the Gail risk factors alone (AUC = 0.64, P < 0.001) or the Gail risk factors plus standard area percent density (AUC = 0.68, P = 0.01). After BMI was further adjusted for, absolute dense area retained significance (OR = 2.18, P < 0.001) and volume percent density approached significance (OR = 1.47, P = 0.06). This combined area-volume density model also had a significantly (P < 0.001) improved discriminatory capacity (AUC = 0.86) relative to a model considering the Gail risk factors plus BMI (AUC = 0.80). Our study suggests that new automated density measures may ultimately augment the current standard breast cancer risk factors. In addition, the ability to fully automate density estimation with digital mammography, particularly through the use of publically available breast density estimation software, could accelerate the translation of density reporting in routine breast cancer screening and surveillance protocols and facilitate broader research into the use of breast density as a risk factor for breast cancer.

Background: Use of risk-reducing Salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) substantially reduces the risk of ovarian and breast cancer for women who carry a BRCA1/2 mutation. It is important to adjust for RRSO use in the estimation of BRCA1/2 penetrance of breast and ovarian cancer. Methods: We searched PubMed for penetrance estimates of breast and ovarian cancer from studies that genotyped individual patients and explicitly adjusted for RRSO use by censoring follow-up at the age of RRSO. We meta-analyzed penetrance estimates from 7 identified studies. We implemented the resulting penetrance estimates in a Mendelian risk prediction model as iplemented in the software package BRCAPRO, which we applied to estimate carrier probabilities in 2 BRCA cohorts. Results: Penetrance estimates by age 70 years for breast cancer were 64.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 59.5% to 69.4%) for BRCA1 mutation carriers and 61.0% (95% CI = 48.1% to 72.5%) for BRCA2 mutation carriers, and for ovarian cancer they were 48.3% (95% CI = 38.8% to 57.9%) and 20.0% (95% CI = 13.3% to 29.0%), respectively. When integrated into BRCAPRO, our estimates led to good calibration and different estimates of carrier probabilities for some individuals when evaluating the models in 2 cohorts. Conclusions: The report updates penetrance estimates for BRCA1/2-associated cancer. We report higher estimates than previously reported, which did not adjust for RRSO. Differential use of RRSO may partially explain heterogeneity in the currently available penetrance estimates. For some individuals, using our estimates in BRCAPRO may result in changes in estimated carrier probabilities, which warrants validation in future studies.

Introduction: We present a fully automated method for deriving quantitative measures of background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) from breast dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) and perform a preliminary evaluation of these measures to assess the effect of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) in a cohort of breast cancer susceptibility gene 1/2 (BRCA1/2) mutation carriers. Methods: Breast DCE-MRI data from 50 BRCA1/2 carriers were retrospectively analyzed in compliance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and with institutional review board approval. Both the absolute (| |) and relative (%) measures of BPE and fibroglandular tissue (FGT) were computed from the MRI scans acquired before and after RRSO. These pre-RRSO and post-RRSO measures were compared using paired Student’s t test. The area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) was used to evaluate the performance of relative changes in the BPE and FGT measures in predicting breast cancer that developed in these women after the RRSO surgery. Results: For the 44 women who did not develop breast cancer after RRSO, the absolute volume of BPE and FGT had a significant decrease (P < 0.05) post-RRSO, whereas for the 6 women who developed breast cancer, there were no significant changes in these measures. Higher values in all BPE and FGT measures were also observed post-RRSO for the women who developed breast cancer, compared with women who did not. Relative changes in BPE percentage were most predictive of women who developed breast cancer after RRSO (P < 0.05), whereas combining BPE percentage and |FGT| yielded an AUC of 0.80, higher than BPE percentage (AUC = 0.78) or |FGT| (AUC = 0.66) alone (both P > 0.02). Conclusions: Quantitative measures of BPE and FGT are different before and after RRSO, and their relative changes are associated with prediction of developing breast cancer, potentially indicative of women who are more susceptible to develop breast cancer after RRSO in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers.