Risk-based Breast Cancer Screening Research Articles

Receiving a Pathogenic Variant in a Population Breast Cancer Screening Trial: A Mixed Method Study

Introduction: Risk-based breast cancer screening aims to address persistent high morbidity and mortality. This study examined the experience of participants in the Women Informed to Screen Depending on Measures of Risk (WISDOM) trial who received a pathogenic variant in one of nine high or moderate penetrance breast cancer genes. Methods: Participants completed a brief survey (n = 181) immediately following the results disclosure and 1 year later. Descriptive statistics were computed and comparisons between participants at different risk levels were performed using Fisher’s exact and McNemar’s tests. Analysis of qualitative interviews (n = 42) at 2–4 weeks and 6 months post-results disclosure compared responses at the 2 time points and explained and elaborated on the survey data. Results: 66.3% of survey respondents felt very or moderately prepared to receive genomic results. At the T1 survey, 80.7% of participants had shared the genetic result with a blood relative, increasing to 88.4% at T2; providing information and encouraging cascade testing were the most common reasons for sharing. Communication with a blood relative, other healthcare providers beyond the primary care provider, and cascade testing were higher for participants with a high risk than low or moderate risk genomic finding. Qualitative interviews elucidated varied reasons why participants felt (un)prepared for the results, including whether or not they had a family history of breast cancer, and illustrated the complexity of decision-making about sharing results. Conclusions: Although most participants communicated results with family members and healthcare providers in accordance with their risk level, questions remain about how to adequately prepare individuals to receive pathogenic results, ensure timely and accessible follow-up care, and facilitate genetic counseling and cascade testing of at-risk relatives in the setting of population risk-based screening.

Evaluating Real World Health System Resource Utilization and Costs for a Risk-Based Breast Cancer Screening Approach in the Canadian PERSPECTIVE Integration and Implementation Project.

A prospective cohort study was undertaken within the PERSPECTIVE I&I project to evaluate healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with breast cancer risk assessment and screening and overall costs stratified by risk level, in Ontario, Canada. From July 2019 to December 2022, 1997 females aged 50 to 70 years consented to risk assessment and received their breast cancer risk level and personalized screening action plan in Ontario. The mean costs for risk-stratified screening-related activities included risk assessment, screening and diagnostic costs. The GETCOST macro from the Institute of Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) assessed the mean overall healthcare system costs. For the 1997 participants, 83.3%, 14.4% and 2.3% were estimated to be average, higher than average, and high risk, respectively (median age (IQR): 60 [56-64] years). Stratification into the three risk levels was determined using the validated multifactorial CanRisk prediction tool that includes family history information, a polygenic risk score (PRS), breast density and established lifestyle/hormonal risk factors. The mean number of genetic counseling visits, mammograms and MRIs per individual increased with risk level. High-risk participants incurred the highest overall mean risk-stratified screening-related costs in 2022 CAD (±SD) at CAD 905 (±269) followed by CAD 580 (±192) and CAD 521 (±163) for higher-than-average and average-risk participants, respectively. Among the breast screening-related costs, the greatest cost burden across all risk groups was the risk assessment cost, followed by total diagnostic and screening costs. The mean overall healthcare cost per participant (±SD) was the highest for the average risk participants with CAD 6311 (±19,641), followed by higher than average risk with CAD 5391 (±8325) and high risk with CAD 5169 (±7676). Although high-risk participants incurred the highest risk-stratified screening-related costs, their costs for overall healthcare utilization costs were similar to other risk levels. Our study underscored the importance of integrating risk stratification as part of the screening pathway to support breast cancer detection at an earlier and more treatable stage, thereby reducing costs and the overall burden on the healthcare system.

Communicating the results of risk-based breast cancer screening through visualizations of risk: a participatory design approach

BackgroundRisk-based breast cancer (BC) screening raises new questions regarding information provision and risk communication. This study aimed to: 1) investigate women’s beliefs and knowledge (i.e., mental models) regarding BC risk and (risk-based) BC screening in view of implications for information development; 2) develop novel informational materials to communicate the screening result in risk-based BC screening, including risk visualizations of both quantitative and qualitative information, from a Human-Centered Design perspective.MethodsPhase 1: Interviews were conducted (n = 15, 40–50 years, 5 lower health literate) on women’s beliefs about BC risk and (risk-based) BC screening. Phase 2: In three participatory design sessions, women (n = 4–6 across sessions, 40–50 years, 2–3 lower health literate) made assignments and created and evaluated visualizations of risk information central to the screening result. Prototypes were evaluated in two additional sessions (n = 2, 54–62 years, 0–1 lower health literate). Phase 3: Experts (n = 5) and women (n = 9, 40–74 years) evaluated the resulting materials. Two other experts were consulted throughout the development process to ensure that the content of the information materials was accurate. Interviews were transcribed literally and analysed using qualitative thematic analysis, focusing on implications for information development. Notes, assignments and materials from the participatory design sessions were summarized and main themes were identified.ResultsWomen in both interviews and design sessions were positive about risk-based BC screening, especially because personal risk factors would be taken into account. However, they emphasized that the rationale of risk-based screening and classification into a risk category should be clearly stated and visualized, especially for higher- and lower-risk categories (which may cause anxiety or feelings of unfairness due to a lower screening frequency). Women wanted to know their personal risk, preferably visualized in an icon array, and wanted advice on risk reduction and breast self-examination. However, most risk factors were considered modifiable by women, and the risk factor breast density was not known, implying that information should emphasize that BC risk depends on multiple factors, including breast density.ConclusionsThe information materials, including risk visualizations of both quantitative and qualitative information, developed from a Human-Centered Design perspective and a mental model approach, were positively evaluated by the target group.

Comprehensive Inherited Risk Estimation for Risk-Based Breast Cancer Screening in Women.

Family history (FH) and pathogenic variants (PVs) are used for guiding risk surveillance in selected high-risk women but little is known about their impact for breast cancer screening on population level. In addition, polygenic risk scores (PRSs) have been shown to efficiently stratify breast cancer risk through combining information about common genetic factors into one measure. In longitudinal real-life data, we evaluate PRS, FH, and PVs for stratified screening. Using FinnGen (N = 117,252), linked to the Mass Screening Registry for breast cancer (1992-2019; nationwide organized biennial screening for age 50-69 years), we assessed the screening performance of a breast cancer PRS and compared its performance with FH of breast cancer and PVs in moderate- (CHEK2)- to high-risk (PALB2) susceptibility genes. Effect sizes for FH, PVs, and high PRS (>90th percentile) were comparable in screening-aged women, with similar implications for shifting age at screening onset. A high PRS identified women more likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer after a positive screening finding (positive predictive value [PPV], 39.5% [95% CI, 37.6 to 41.5]). Combinations of risk factors increased the PPVs up to 45% to 50%. A high PRS conferred an elevated risk of interval breast cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 2.78 [95% CI, 2.00 to 3.86] at age 50 years; HR, 2.48 [95% CI, 1.67 to 3.70] at age 60 years), and women with a low PRS (<10th percentile) had a low risk for both interval- and screen-detected breast cancers. Using real-life screening data, this study demonstrates the effectiveness of a breast cancer PRS for risk stratification, alone and combined with FH and PVs. Further research is required to evaluate their impact in a prospective risk-stratified screening program, including cost-effectiveness.

Optimising Risk-based Breast Cancer Screening in Hong Kong

Optimising Risk-based Breast Cancer Screening in Hong Kong

Breast Cancer Incidence After a False-Positive Mammography Result

False-positive mammography results are common. However, long-term outcomes after a false-positive result remain unclear. To examine long-term outcomes after a false-positive mammography result and to investigate whether the association of a false-positive mammography result with cancer differs by baseline characteristics, tumor characteristics, and time since the false-positive result. This population-based, matched cohort study was conducted in Sweden from January 1, 1991, to March 31, 2020. It included 45 213 women who received a first false-positive mammography result between 1991 and 2017 and 452 130 controls matched on age, calendar year of mammography, and screening history (no previous false-positive result). The study also included 1113 women with a false-positive result and 11 130 matched controls with information on mammographic breast density from the Karolinska Mammography Project for Risk Prediction of Breast Cancer study. Statistical analysis was performed from April 2022 to February 2023. A false-positive mammography result. Breast cancer incidence and mortality. The study cohort included 497 343 women (median age, 52 years [IQR, 42-59 years]). The 20-year cumulative incidence of breast cancer was 11.3% (95% CI, 10.7%-11.9%) among women with a false-positive result vs 7.3% (95% CI, 7.2%-7.5%) among those without, with an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 1.61 (95% CI, 1.54-1.68). The corresponding HRs were higher among women aged 60 to 75 years at the examination (HR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.80-2.26) and those with lower mammographic breast density (HR, 4.65; 95% CI, 2.61-8.29). In addition, breast cancer risk was higher for women who underwent a biopsy at the recall (HR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.63-1.92) than for those without a biopsy (HR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.43-1.60). Cancers after a false-positive result were more likely to be detected on the ipsilateral side of the false-positive result (HR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.81-2.04) and were more common during the first 4 years of follow-up (HR, 2.57; 95% CI, 2.33-2.85 during the first 2 years; HR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.76-2.12 at >2 to 4 years). No statistical difference was found for different tumor characteristics (except for larger tumor size). Furthermore, associated with the increased risk of breast cancer, women with a false-positive result had an 84% higher rate of breast cancer death than those without (HR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.57-2.15). This study suggests that the risk of developing breast cancer after a false-positive mammography result differs by individual characteristics and follow-up. These findings can be used to develop individualized risk-based breast cancer screening after a false-positive result.

Beyond the AJR: Deep Learning Model for Risk-Based Breast Cancer Screening.

Beyond the AJR: Deep Learning Model for Risk-Based Breast Cancer ScreeningJung Hyun Yoon, MD, PhD1 and Eun-Kyung Kim, MD, PhD2Audio Available | Share

Cost-effectiveness evaluation of risk-based breast cancer screening in Urban Hebei Province

To evaluate the implementations of Cancer Screening Program in Urban Hebei and to model the cost-effectiveness of a risk-based breast Cancer Screening Program. Women aged 40–74 years were invited to participate the Cancer Screening Program in Urban Hebei form 2016 to 2020 by completing questionnaires to collect information about breast cancer exposure. Clinical screening including ultrasound and mammography examination were performed. We developed a Markov model to estimate the lifetime costs and benefits, in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALY), of a high-risk breast Cancer Screening Program. Nine screening strategies and no screening were included in the study. The age-specific incidence, transition probability data and lifetime treatment costs were derived and adopted from other researches. Average cost-effectiveness ratios (ACERs) were estimated as the ratios of the additional costs of the screening strategies to the QLYG compared to no screening. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated based on the comparison of a lower cost strategies to the next more expensive and effective strategies after excluding dominated strategies and extendedly dominated strategies. ICERs were used to compare with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. Sensitivity analysis was explored the influence factors. A total of 84,029 women completed a risk assessment questionnaire, from which 20,655 high-risk breast cancer females were evaluated, with a high-risk rate of 24.58%. There were 13,392 high-risk females completed the screening program, with participation rate was 64.84%. Undergoing ultrasound, mammography and combined screening, the suspicious positive detection rates were 15.00%, 9.20% and 19.30%, and the positive detection rates were 2.11%, 2.76% and 3.83%, respectively. According to the results by Markov model, at the end of 45 cycle, the early diagnosis rates were 55.53%, 60.68% and 62.47% underwent the annual screening by ultrasound, mammography and combined, the proportion of advanced cancer were 17.20%, 15.85% and 15.36%, respectively. Different screening method and interval yield varied. In the exploration of various scenarios, annual ultrasound screening is the most cost-effective strategy with the ICER of ¥116,176.15/QALY. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the results are robust. Although it was not cost effective, combined ultrasound and mammography screening was an effective strategy for higher positive detection rate of breast cancer. High-risk population-based breast cancer screening by ultrasound annually was the most cost-effective strategy in Urban Hebei Province.

"It Will Lead You to Make Better Decisions about Your Health"-A Focus Group and Survey Study on Women's Attitudes towards Risk-Based Breast Cancer Screening and Personalised Risk Assessments.

Singapore launched a population-based organised mammography screening (MAM) programme in 2002. However, uptake is low. A better understanding of breast cancer (BC) risk factors has generated interest in shifting from a one-size-fits-all to a risk-based screening approach. However, public acceptability of the change is lacking. Focus group discussions (FGD) were conducted with 54 women (median age 37.5 years) with no BC history. Eight online sessions were transcribed, coded, and thematically analysed. Additionally, we surveyed 993 participants in a risk-based MAM study on how they felt in anticipation of receiving their risk profiles. Attitudes towards MAM (e.g., fear, low perceived risk) have remained unchanged for ~25 years. However, FGD participants reported that they would be more likely to attend routine mammography after having their BC risks assessed, despite uncertainty and concerns about risk-based screening. This insight was reinforced by the survey participants reporting more positive than negative feelings before receiving their risk reports. There is enthusiasm in knowing personal disease risk but concerns about the level of support for individuals learning they are at higher risk for breast cancer. Our results support the empowering of Singaporean women with personal health information to improve MAM uptake.

Feasibility and Acceptability of Personalized Breast Cancer Screening (DECIDO Study): A Single-Arm Proof-of-Concept Trial.

The aim of this study was to assess the acceptability and feasibility of offering risk-based breast cancer screening and its integration into regular clinical practice. A single-arm proof-of-concept trial was conducted with a sample of 387 women aged 40–50 years residing in the city of Lleida (Spain). The study intervention consisted of breast cancer risk estimation, risk communication and screening recommendations, and a follow-up. A polygenic risk score with 83 single nucleotide polymorphisms was used to update the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium risk model and estimate the 5-year absolute risk of breast cancer. The women expressed a positive attitude towards varying the frequency of breast screening according to individual risk and, especially, more frequently inviting women at higher-than-average risk. A lower intensity screening for women at lower risk was not as welcome, although half of the participants would accept it. Knowledge of the benefits and harms of breast screening was low, especially with regard to false positives and overdiagnosis. The women expressed a high understanding of individual risk and screening recommendations. The participants’ intention to participate in risk-based screening and satisfaction at 1-year were very high.

“It’s personalized, but it’s still bucket based”: the promise of personalized medicine vs. the reality of genomic risk stratification in a breast cancer screening trial

Adaptive pragmatic clinical trials offer an innovative approach that integrates clinical care and research. Yet, blurring the boundaries between research and clinical care raises questions about how clinicians and investigators balance their patient care and research roles and what types of knowledge and risk assessment are most valued. This paper presents findings from an ethnographic ELSI (Ethical, Legal, Social Implications) study of an innovative clinical trial of risk-based breast cancer screening that utilizes genomics to stratify risk and recommend a breast cancer screening schedule commensurate with the assessed risk. We argue that the trial demonstrates a fundamental tension between the promissory ideals of personalized medicine, and the reality of implementing risk-stratified care on a population scale. We examine the development of a Screening Assignment Review Board in response to this tension which allows clinician-investigators to negotiate, but never fully resolve, the inherent contradiction of “precision population screening.”

BREAst screening Tailored for HEr (BREATHE)-A study protocol on personalised risk-based breast cancer screening programme.

Routine mammography screening is currently the standard tool for finding cancers at an early stage, when treatment is most successful. Current breast screening programmes are one-size-fits-all which all women above a certain age threshold are encouraged to participate. However, breast cancer risk varies by individual. The BREAst screening Tailored for HEr (BREATHE) study aims to assess acceptability of a comprehensive risk-based personalised breast screening in Singapore. Advancing beyond the current age-based screening paradigm, BREATHE integrates both genetic and non-genetic breast cancer risk prediction tools to personalise screening recommendations. BREATHE is a cohort study targeting to recruit ~3,500 women. The first recruitment visit will include questionnaires and a buccal cheek swab. After receiving a tailored breast cancer risk report, participants will attend an in-person risk review, followed by a final session assessing the acceptability of our risk stratification programme. Risk prediction is based on: a) Gail model (non-genetic), b) mammographic density and recall, c) BOADICEA predictions (breast cancer predisposition genes), and d) breast cancer polygenic risk score. For national implementation of personalised risk-based breast screening, exploration of the acceptability within the target populace is critical, in addition to validated predication tools. To our knowledge, this is the first study to implement a comprehensive risk-based mammography screening programme in Asia. The BREATHE study will provide essential data for policy implementation which will transform the health system to deliver a better health and healthcare outcomes.

Views of health professionals on risk-based breast cancer screening and its implementation in the Spanish National Health System: A qualitative discussion group study.

With the aim of increasing benefits and decreasing harms, risk-based breast cancer screening has been proposed as an alternative to age-based screening. This study explores barriers and facilitators to implementing a risk-based breast cancer screening program from the perspective of health professionals, in the context of a National Health Service. Socio-constructivist qualitative research carried out in Catalonia (Spain), in the year 2019. Four discussion groups were conducted, with a total of 29 health professionals from primary care, breast cancer screening programs, hospital breast units, epidemiology units, and clinical specialties. A descriptive-interpretive thematic analysis was performed. Identified barriers included resistance to reducing the number of screening exams for low-risk women; resistance to change for health professionals; difficulties in risk communication; lack of conclusive evidence of the benefits of risk-based screening; limited economic resources; and organizational transformation. Facilitators include benefits of risk-based strategies for high and low-risk women; women's active role in their health care; proximity of women and primary care professionals; experience of health professionals in other screening programs; and greater efficiency of a risk-based screening program. Organizational and administrative changes in the health system, commitment by policy makers, training of health professionals, and educational interventions addressed to the general population will be required. Despite the expressed difficulties, participants supported the implementation of risk-based screening. They highlighted its benefits, especially for women at high risk of breast cancer and those under 50 years of age, and assumed a greater efficiency of the risk-based program compared to the aged-based one. Future studies should assess the efficiency and feasibility of risk-based breast cancer screening for its transfer to clinical practice.

Barriers and Facilitators to the Implementation of a Personalized Breast Cancer Screening Program: Views of Spanish Health Professionals.

This study explored the barriers and facilitators to the implementation of a risk-based breast cancer screening program from the point of view of Spanish health professionals. A cross-sectional study with 220 Spanish health professionals was designed. Data were collected in 2020 via a web-based survey and included the advantages and disadvantages of risk-based screening and barriers and facilitators for the implementation of the program. Descriptive statistics and Likert scale responses analyzed as category-ordered data were obtained. The risk-based screening was considered important or very important to reduce breast cancer mortality and promote a more proactive role for women in breast cancer prevention, to increase coverage for women under 50 years, to promote a breast cancer prevention strategy for women at high risk, and to increase efficiency and effectiveness. Switching to a risk-based program from an age-based program was rated as important or very important by 85% of participants. As barriers for implementation, risk communication, the workload of health professionals, and limited human and financial resources were mentioned. Despite the barriers, there is good acceptance, and it seems feasible, from the perspective of health professionals, to implement a risk-based breast cancer screening program in Spain. However, this poses a number of organizational and resource challenges.

The epidemiologic factors associated with breast density

In recent years, some studies have evaluated the epidemiologic factors associated with breast density. However, the variant and inconsistent results exist. In addition, breast density has been proved to be a significant risk factor associated with breast cancer. Our review summarized the published studies and emphasized the crucial factors including epidemiological factors associated with breast density. In addition, we also discussed the potential reasons for the discrepant results with risk factors. To decrease the incidence and mortality rates for breast cancer, in clinical practice, breast density should be included for clinical risk models in addition to epidemiological factors, and physicians should get more concentrate on those women with risk factors and provide risk-based breast cancer screening regimens.

Optimizing risk-based breast cancer screening policies with reinforcement learning

Screening programs must balance the benefit of early detection with the cost of overscreening. Here, we introduce a novel reinforcement learning-based framework for personalized screening, Tempo, and demonstrate its efficacy in the context of breast cancer. We trained our risk-based screening policies on a large screening mammography dataset from Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH; USA) and validated this dataset in held-out patients from MGH and external datasets from Emory University (Emory; USA), Karolinska Institute (Karolinska; Sweden) and Chang Gung Memorial Hospital (CGMH; Taiwan). Across all test sets, we find that the Tempo policy combined with an image-based artificial intelligence (AI) risk model is significantly more efficient than current regimens used in clinical practice in terms of simulated early detection per screen frequency. Moreover, we show that the same Tempo policy can be easily adapted to a wide range of possible screening preferences, allowing clinicians to select their desired trade-off between early detection and screening costs without training new policies. Finally, we demonstrate that Tempo policies based on AI-based risk models outperform Tempo policies based on less accurate clinical risk models. Altogether, our results show that pairing AI-based risk models with agile AI-designed screening policies has the potential to improve screening programs by advancing early detection while reducing overscreening.

Automated Breast Density Measurement in Mammography for Cancer Risk Stratification

HomeRadiology: Imaging CancerVol. 3, No. 6 PreviousNext Research HighlightsFree AccessAutomated Breast Density Measurement in Mammography for Cancer Risk StratificationSurrin DeenSurrin DeenSurrin DeenPublished Online:Nov 26 2021https://doi.org/10.1148/rycan.2021219025MoreSectionsPDF ToolsImage ViewerAdd to favoritesCiteTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked In Take-Away Points■ Major Focus: Breast density (BD) was quantified using automated software and compared with subjective radiologist rating of BD.■ Key Result: Automated software improved discrimination of cancer type and of interval cancers compared with visual assessment by a radiologist.■ Impact: Automated BD measurements from mammograms have the potential to stratify patients undergoing breast cancer screening, reducing false-positive rates and the frequency of unnecessary further tests such as MRI or biopsy.Stratified or risk-based breast cancer screening aims to select the most suitable personalized screening regimen for individual patients by estimating the likelihood of developing cancer and balancing this against the negative impact of unnecessary tests. Risk-based stratification algorithms incorporate BD classified subjectively by a radiologist in Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System.In the retrospective case-control study highlighted here, the authors used a U.K.-based population database, the OPTIMAM Database, to identify screening mammograms with cancer in women aged 47EN_DASH73 years. Cancer-free controls (n = 605) were identified and matched to cancer cases (n = 599) on the basis of age and the imaging equipment used. Automated software (Volpara, version 1.5.1; Volpara Health Technologies) calculated fibroglandular volume (FGV), volumetric BD (VBD), and density grade (DG). This was compared to BD assessed by a blinded radiologist using a visual analogue scale (VAS) from 0 to 100.The relative discriminative ability of FGV, both overall and for individual cancer subtypes, was found to be either equivalent to or greater than that of VAS or VBD, whether using statistical analyses based on logistic regression, receiver operating characteristic curves, or number of cancers included in the highest risk category (highest quartile). FGV provided the steepest risk gradient for all cancers, with an odds ratio (OR) for the highest quartile compared to the lowest quartile of 3.7 (95% CI: 2.5, 5.6). FGV quartile, VBD quartile, and DG also predicted node-positive cancers, and FGV quartile demonstrated the steepest risk gradient for interval (OR, 5.3; CI: 3.1, 9.1; P < .01), node-positive (OR, 4.7; CI: 2.5, 9.0; P < .01), and combined cancers (OR, 4.7; CI: 2.9, 7.8; P < .01).This study suggests that automated FGV may provide a good foundation for stratified breast cancer screening. However, information on several covariates was not collected in this study, necessitating further work to confirm this finding.Highlighted ArticleBurnside ES, Warren LM, Myles J, et al. Quantitative breast density analysis to predict interval and node-positive cancers in pursuit of improved screening protocols: a case-control study. Br J Cancer 2021;125(6):884–892. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-021-01466-yHighlighted ArticleBurnside ES, Warren LM, Myles J, et al. Quantitative breast density analysis to predict interval and node-positive cancers in pursuit of improved screening protocols: a case-control study. Br J Cancer 2021;125(6):884–892. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-021-01466-y Crossref, Medline, Google ScholarArticle HistoryPublished online: Nov 26 2021 FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsRecommended Articles Impact of New Technology Adoption on Breast Cancer ScreeningRadiology2018Volume: 290Issue: 3pp. 638-639Age-based versus Risk-based Mammography Screening in Women 40–49 Years Old: A Cross-sectional StudyRadiology2019Volume: 292Issue: 2pp. 321-328MRI Screening Interval in Women with a History of Breast CancerRadiology2021Volume: 300Issue: 2pp. 312-313Fully Automated Volumetric Breast Density Estimation from Digital Breast TomosynthesisRadiology2021Volume: 301Issue: 3pp. 561-568Deep Learning Predicts Interval and Screening-detected Cancer from Screening Mammograms: A Case-Case-Control Study in 6369 WomenRadiology2021Volume: 301Issue: 3pp. 550-558See More RSNA Education Exhibits Let’s Talk about Next-Generation Breast Cancer Screening Programs: How Should We Do? What Should We Use?Digital Posters2020The Impact of New Genetic Mutations Associated with Breast Cancer on Breast MRI ScreeningDigital Posters2020Dense Breast: Is It Really Looking for a Needle in the Haystack? Digital Posters2020 RSNA Case Collection Malignancy on abbreviated screening breast MRIRSNA Case Collection2020Multifocal breast cancerRSNA Case Collection2020Breast density change with hormone replacement RSNA Case Collection2021 Vol. 3, No. 6 Metrics Altmetric Score PDF download

906Can mammographic density add value to the Gail model in risk-stratifying women in BreastScreen Australia?

Abstract Background There is significant interest in personalised, risk-based breast cancer screening. This requires high quality risk assessment. The ‘Gail model’ risk assessment tool has been validated on over 40,000 BreastScreen Australia participants. We assess whether adding mammographic density (MD) information improves risk stratification on that cohort. Methods We used questionnaire data, baseline MD readings (using AutoDensity) and linked screening and cancer registry records from 40,158 BreastScreen Australia participants aged 50–69 years (via the lifepool cohort). We investigated incident invasive breast cancer rates by quintiles of Gail model scores, MD, and combinations of Gail and MD. Results Gail scores and MD values were weakly correlated (r≤0.02). Gail and MD were each strong predictors of incident breast cancer, but stronger predictors when used in combination. For example, the odds ratio for incident invasive breast cancer was 3.6 (95%CI 2.5-6.3) for the 17% of women in the upper two quintiles of both Gail and MD scores compared to the 17% of women in the lower two quintiles of both scores. In comparison, the odds ratio for breast cancer between same-size (each 17%) upper and lower groups for Gail score alone was 2.5 (95%CI 1.8-3.4), and for MD 1.9 (95%CI 1.2-2.9). Conclusions Combining Gail and MD categories improves risk stratification on BreastScreen Australia participants, compared to using Gail or MD alone. Key messages While questionnaire data and MD measures are each strong predictors of future invasive breast cancer among BreastScreen Australia participants, risk prediction is stronger when questionnaire and MD measures are combined.

965The estimated impact of improved breast screening tests targeted at women with dense breasts

Abstract Background There is increasing interest in risk-based breast cancer screening, including interventions to improve outcomes for women with mammographically dense breasts. Methods Policy1-Breast is a continuous-time, multiple-cohort micro-simulation whole-population model which incorporates breast cancer risk, life-course breast density, menopause, hormone therapy use and screening participation. Outcomes include cancer diagnoses and characteristics (invasive/DCIS, tumour size, grade), mode of detection (screen-detected/interval/other) and mortality (breast cancer and other cause). Policy1-Breast validates well against key observed clinical outcomes in Australia. We estimate changes in outcomes within and outside the BreastScreen program upon the introduction of a hypothetical screening test with improved sensitivity for women with dense breasts. Results We estimate that introducing in year 2020 a screening test for women in the highest quintile of breast density at age 50 that halves the masking effect of their breast density would, by 2026-2030, increase diagnosis rates of population-level invasive cancers ( 10%) and screen-detected cancers (20%) and decrease rates of interval cancers (17%) and community-detected cancers (6%). Conclusions Targeted screening tests with improved sensitivity for women with dense breasts are expected to markedly reduce interval cancers and other cancers diagnosed outside the BreastScreen program, while increasing all cancer diagnoses due to increased rates of screen-detected cancers. Key messages Specialised breast cancer screening tests directed at women with very high breast density are expected to reduce interval cancers and increase overall cancer diagnoses. Population simulation models such as Policy1-Breast can complement trial evidence by evaluating a range of scenarios and estimating short and long-term implications.

Personalized Risk Assessment for Prevention and Early Detection of Breast Cancer: Integration and Implementation (PERSPECTIVE I&amp;I)

Early detection of breast cancer through screening reduces breast cancer mortality. The benefits of screening must also be considered within the context of potential harms (e.g., false positives, overdiagnosis). Furthermore, while breast cancer risk is highly variable within the population, most screening programs use age to determine eligibility. A risk-based approach is expected to improve the benefit-harm ratio of breast cancer screening programs. The PERSPECTIVE I&I (Personalized Risk Assessment for Prevention and Early Detection of Breast Cancer: Integration and Implementation) project seeks to improve personalized risk assessment to allow for a cost-effective, population-based approach to risk-based screening and determine best practices for implementation in Canada. This commentary describes the four inter-related activities that comprise the PERSPECTIVE I&I project. 1: Identification and validation of novel moderate to high-risk susceptibility genes. 2: Improvement, validation, and adaptation of a risk prediction web-tool for the Canadian context. 3: Development and piloting of a socio-ethical framework to support implementation of risk-based breast cancer screening. 4: Economic analysis to optimize the implementation of risk-based screening. Risk-based screening and prevention is expected to benefit all women, empowering them to work with their healthcare provider to make informed decisions about screening and prevention.