Brandt, Kathleen R.

Abstract Purpose: The evidence on associations of mammographic breast density with breast cancer risk by combination of tumor aggressiveness features is limited. We examined associations of breast density phenotypes with risk of aggressive breast tumor features by menopausal status, and current postmenopausal hormone therapy. Methods: This study included 2,635 invasive breast cancer cases and 4,059 controls from participants of four nested case-control studies within four established cohorts: the Mayo Mammography Health Study, the Nurses Health Study, Nurses Health Study II, and San Francisco Mammography Registry. Percent breast density, absolute dense and non-dense areas were assessed from digitized film-screen mammograms using a computer-assisted threshold technique and standardized across studies. We used polytomous logistic regression to quantify the associations of breast density measures with risk of breast tumor aggressiveness (defined as presence of 2 or more of the following tumor characteristics: size ≥2cm, grade 2 or 3, or positive nodes), stratified by menopausal status and current hormone therapy (i.e., premenopausal, postmenopausal/estrogen therapy, postmenopausal/combined therapy, and postmenopausal/no hormones). We also evaluated differences in the strength of associations across categories. In a secondary analysis, we examined these associations while excluding cases with mammogram date within 2 years of diagnosis. Results: Positive associations of percent density and dense area and inverse associations of non-dense area with breast cancer risk were stronger in aggressive vs. non-aggressive tumors (OR=2.62, 95%CI 2.08-3.31 vs. OR=1.94, 95%CI 1.62-2.33 for percent density≥51% vs. 11-25%, p-heterogeneity=0.001; OR=1.89, 95%CI 1.54-2.31 vs. OR=1.65, 95%CI 1.41-1.93 for dense area 4th vs. 2nd quartile, p-heterogeneity=0.015; OR=0.56, 95%CI 0.44-0.72 vs. OR=0.71, 95%CI 0.59-0.86 for non-dense area 4th vs 2nd quartile, p-heterogeneity=0.007, respectively). These patterns were similar across all menopausal and hormone therapy groups (P-interactions=0.62, 0.76, and 0.23, for percent density, dense area and non-dense area, respectively). Excluding cases diagnosed within 2 years of mammography resulted in similar findings. Conclusion: Mammographic density phenotypes were more strongly associated with aggressive cancer (having two or more of the following: size ≥2cm, grade 2 or 3, or positive nodes) vs. non-aggressive types of breast cancer across categories of menopause and hormone therapy types. Citation Format: Lusine Yaghjyan, Rulla Tamimi, Kimberly Bertrand, Christopher G. Scott, Matthew R. Jensen, Shane Pankratz, Kathleen Brandt, Daniel Visscher, Aaron Norman, Fergus Cough, John Shepherd, Bo Fan, Yunn-Yi Chen, Lin Ma, Andrew H. Beck, Steven R. Cummings, Karla Kerlikowske, Celine Vachon. Interaction of mammographic breast density with menopausal status and postmenopausal hormone use in relation to the risk of aggressive breast cancer subtypes. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference: Improving Cancer Risk Prediction for Prevention and Early Detection; Nov 16-19, 2016; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2017;26(5 Suppl):Abstract nr B27.

Abstract Purpose: Volumetric breast density and body mass index (BMI) are increasingly used for breast cancer risk stratification. We examine if the effect of volumetric breast density on breast cancer risk increases with increasing BMI. Methods: Participants were from two case-control studies within mammography practices, the San Francisco Mammography Registry and the Mayo Clinic Rochester, Breast Screening Practice. Breast cancers were included if diagnosed between January 2007 and 2015 and with a screening full-field digital mammogram at least 6 months prior to diagnosis; the earliest mammogram within 5 years of diagnosis was selected. Up to three controls were matched to each case on age, race, date, mammography machine, and state of residence. Volumetric percent density (VPD), dense volume (DV) and non-dense volume (NDV) were measured using VolparaTM software. Breast cancer risk was assessed using logistic regression stratified by menopause status and adjusted for matching factors, family history of breast cancer, parity/age at first birth, and postmenopausal hormone therapy. Models for DV were additionally adjusted for NDV, and NDV models for DV. Multiplicative interactions were fit between BMI categories [<25 (underweight), 25-30 (normal weight) and >30 (overweight/obese) kg/m2] and VPD, DV, and NDV, and trend tests assessed for increasing odds ratios (OR) with increasing BMI. Results: A total of 781 premenopausal and 1850 postmenopausal breast cancers and 3535 controls were included in the analysis. Median age of premenopausal women was 45 years (IQR: 6.1) and 63.3 years (IQR: 14) for postmenopausal women. Cases vs. controls had greater VPD and DV for both premenopausal (VPD: 14.9% vs. 12.0%, DV: 74.1 cm3 vs. 64.4 cm3) and postmenopausal women (VPD: 6.8% vs. 6.1%, DV: 53.4 cm3 vs. 48.0 cm3)(all p's<0.001). Trends between increasing BMI and VPD were evident for both pre (ptrend=0.0007) and postmenopausal (ptrend=0.0005) women. Among premenopausal women, the odds ratio (OR) for breast cancer associated with a 10% increase in VPD was of 1.39, 2.19 and 2.88 for BMI <25, 25-30 and >30 kg/m2 (p-trend=0.0007), respectively. For DV, OR's were 1.39, 1.33 and 1.51 for a 1 SD increase in DV, respectively, though the interaction with DV was not significant (ptrend=0.68). Among postmenopausal women, a 10% increase in VPD was associated with OR's of 1.35, 2.03, 3.6 for BMI <25, 25-29, >30-kg/m2 (ptrend =0.0001), respectively, and 1.31, 1.34 and 1.65 for a 1 SD increase in DV (ptrend =0.01), respectively. Associations between NDV and breast cancer risk did not differ by BMI category for premenopausal (ptrend =0.52) or postmenopausal (ptrend =0.07) women. Conclusions: The effect of VPD on breast cancer risk is strongest in overweight/obese women. As volumetric breast density and BMI are commonly used in clinical risk stratification, these differences in risk have high clinical relevance for informing prevention decisions. Citation Format: Natalie J. Engmann, Christopher G. Scott, Matthew R. Jensen, Stacey J. Winham, Lin Ma, Kathleen R. Brandt, Amir Mahmoudzadeh, Serghei Malkov, Dana Whaley, Carrie Hruska, Fang Fang Wu, Diana L. Miglioretti, Aaron D. Norman, John Heine, John Shepherd, Vernon S. Pankratz, Celine M. Vachon, Karla Kerlikowske. Overweight and obese women with high volumetric breast density at high breast cancer risk [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2018; 2018 Apr 14-18; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 3226.

Background More than 1.5 million women per year have a benign breast biopsy resulting in concern about their future breast cancer (BC) risk. This study examined the performance of 2 BC risk models that integrate clinical and histologic findings in this population. Methods The BC risk at 5 and 10 years was estimated with the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) and Benign Breast Disease to Breast Cancer (BBD‐BC) models for women diagnosed with benign breast disease (BBD) at the Mayo Clinic from 1997 to 2001. Women with BBD were eligible for the BBD‐BC model, but the BCSC model also required a screening mammogram. Calibration and discrimination were assessed. Results Fifty‐six cases of BC were diagnosed among the 2142 women with BBD (median age, 50 years) within 5 years (118 were diagnosed within 10 years). The BBD‐BC model had slightly better calibration at 5 years (0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71‐1.21) versus 10 years (0.81; 95% CI, 0.70‐1.00) but similar discrimination in the 2 time periods: 0.68 (95% CI, 0.60‐0.75) and 0.66 (95% CI, 0.60‐0.71), respectively. In contrast, among the 1089 women with screening mammograms (98 cases of BC within 10 years), the BCSC model had better calibration (0.94; 95% CI, 0.85‐1.43) and discrimination (0.63; 95% CI, 0.56‐0.71) at 10 years versus 5 years (calibration, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.94‐2.25; discrimination, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.46‐0.71) where discrimination was not different from chance. Conclusions The BCSC and BBD‐BC models were validated in the Mayo BBD cohort, although their performance differed by 5‐year risk versus 10‐year risk. Further enhancement of these models is needed to provide accurate BC risk estimates for women with BBD.

AbstractObjectiveTo determine the reproducibility of classifying uterine fibroids using the 2011 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging system.MethodsThe present retrospective cohort study included patients presenting for the treatment of symptomatic uterine fibroids at the Gynecology Fibroid Clinic at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA, between April 1, 2013 and April 1, 2014. Magnetic resonance imaging of fibroid uteri was performed and the images were independently reviewed by two academic gynecologists and two radiologists specializing in fibroid care. Fibroid classifications assigned by each physician were compared and the significance of the variations was graded by whether they would affect surgical planning.ResultsThere were 42 fibroids from 23 patients; only 6 (14%) fibroids had unanimous classification agreement. The majority (36 [86%]) had at least two unique answers and 4 (10%) fibroids had four unique classifications. Variations in classification were not associated with physician specialty. More than one‐third of the classification discrepancies would have impacted surgical planning.ConclusionFIGO fibroid classification was not consistent among four fibroid specialists. The variation was clinically significant for 36% of the fibroids. Additional validation of the FIGO fibroid classification system is needed.

Abstract Background: Reductions in breast density with tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitors may be an intermediate marker of treatment response. We compare changes in volumetric breast density among breast cancer cases using tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors (AI) to untreated women without breast cancer. Methods: Breast cancer cases with a digital mammogram prior to diagnosis and after initiation of tamoxifen (n = 366) or AI (n = 403) and a sample of controls (n = 2170) were identified from the Mayo Clinic Mammography Practice and San Francisco Mammography Registry. Volumetric percent density (VPD) and dense breast volume (DV) were measured using Volpara (Matakina Technology) and Quantra (Hologic) software. Linear regression estimated the effect of treatment on annualized changes in density. Results: Premenopausal women using tamoxifen experienced annualized declines in VPD of 1.17% to 1.70% compared with 0.30% to 0.56% for controls and declines in DV of 7.43 to 15.13 cm3 compared with 0.28 to 0.63 cm3 in controls, for Volpara and Quantra, respectively. The greatest reductions were observed among women with ≥10% baseline density. Postmenopausal AI users had greater declines in VPD than controls (Volpara P = 0.02; Quantra P = 0.03), and reductions were greatest among women with ≥10% baseline density. Declines in VPD among postmenopausal women using tamoxifen were only statistically greater than controls when measured with Quantra. Conclusions: Automated software can detect volumetric breast density changes among women on tamoxifen and AI. Impact: If declines in volumetric density predict breast cancer outcomes, these measures may be used as interim prognostic indicators. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(6); 930–7. ©2017 AACR.

Abstract Breast density represents the stromal and epithelial tissue in the breast and is a strong risk factor for breast cancer. Reductions in breast density attributable to tamoxifen (TAM) and aromatase inhibitors (AI) may be associated with reduced risk of first primary and subsequent breast cancer. Studies assessing breast density changes have principally used two-dimensional measures. We assess changes in breast density following initiation of TAM and AI using two automated volumetric density measures that have shown strong associations to breast cancer risk. Breast cancer cases with a full field digital mammogram (FFDM) prior to diagnosis (index mammogram) and after initiation of TAM (n = 379) or AI (n = 425) were identified from the Mayo Clinic Mammography Practice and the San Francisco Mammography Registry. Volumetric percent density (VPD) and dense volume (DV) were measured on 4-view FFDM using VolparaTM (Matakina Technology) and QuantraTM (Hologic) automated software. We used linear regression to assess the effect of treatment on mean annualized change in VPD and DV (change from index to last mammogram divided by time interval) for each software type, adjusting for age, body mass index (BMI) and density at index mammogram. The median time between index mammogram and cancer diagnosis was 0.6 months (IQR: 0.2, 2.2) and median time between index and last mammogram was 3 years (IQR: 2.0, 3.9). Women on TAM were younger, had lower BMI and higher baseline VPD and DV relative to women on AI (Table). An annual decrease in VPD and DV was observed with both TAM and AI. Both Volpara and Quantra estimated a similar magnitude of change in VPD in women on TAM and AI, and a greater change in DV with TAM. Our findings suggest that both Volpara and Quantra can assess volumetric changes in breast density among women on hormone therapy. If declines in volumetric density correlate with a reduction in breast cancer risk, these automated measures could be used in clinical practice to assess response to therapy. Annualized changes in volumetric breast density estimated by linear regression.Tamoxifen (n = 379)Aromatase Inhibitors (n = 425)Baseline Median (IQR)Annualized Change (95% CI)*Baseline Median (IQR)Annualized Change (95% CI)*Age at Diagnosis50.0 (45.0, 60.0)–63.0 (58.0, 71.0)–Body Mass Index (BMI)23.6 (21.5, 26.8)–25.7 (22.7, 29.9)–Time Interval¥3.0 (2.1, 3.9)–3.0 (2.1, 3.9)–VolparaPercent Density (VPD,%)11.6 (6.8, 18.8)-0.17 (-0.27, -0.10)7.2 (5.0, 11.0)-0.19 (-0.29, -0.12)Dense Volume (DV, cm3)64.7 (45.4, 90.9)-0.90 (-1.45, -0.48)51.9 (38.9, 69.9)-0.52 (-0.93, -0.23)QuantraPercent Density (VPD,%)14.5 (9.2, 20.2)-0.42 (-0.59, -0.28)9.9 (7.1, 14.5)-0.38 (-0.54, -0.25)Dense Volume (DV, cm3)94.0 (58.0, 144.0)-2.20 (-3.52, -1.19)80.0 (49.0, 128.0)-0.95 (-1.85, -0.35)IQR = Interquartile range ¥ Median number of years between index mammogram and last mammogram post-initiation of therapy. *Annualized change estimated as change from index to last mammogram divided by time interval and adjusted for study site, age at diagnosis, BMI and density at index mammogram. Citation Format: Natalie J. Engmann, Celine M. Vachon, Christopher G. Scott, Matthew R. Jensen, Lin Ma, Kathleen R. Brandt, Amir P. Mahmoudzadeh, Serghei Malkov, Dana H. Whaley, Carrie B. Hruska, Fang F. Wu, Stacey J. Winham, Diana L. Miglioretti, Aaron D. Norman, John J. Heine, John Shepherd, V Shane Pankratz, Karla Kerlikowske. Longitudinal changes in volumetric breast density with adjuvant endocrine therapy among women with breast cancer. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 107th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2016 Apr 16-20; New Orleans, LA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(14 Suppl):Abstract nr 3424.

BACKGROUNDThe objective of this study was to demonstrate that computer‐extracted image phenotypes (CEIPs) of biopsy‐proven breast cancer on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can accurately predict pathologic stage.METHODSThe authors used a data set of deidentified breast MRIs organized by the National Cancer Institute in The Cancer Imaging Archive. In total, 91 biopsy‐proven breast cancers were analyzed from patients who had information available on pathologic stage (stage I, n = 22; stage II, n = 58; stage III, n = 11) and surgically verified lymph node status (negative lymph nodes, n = 46; ≥ 1 positive lymph node, n = 44; no lymph nodes examined, n = 1). Tumors were characterized according to 1) radiologist‐measured size and 2) CEIP. Then, models were built that combined 2 CEIPs to predict tumor pathologic stage and lymph node involvement, and the models were evaluated in a leave‐1‐out, cross‐validation analysis with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) as the value of interest.RESULTSTumor size was the most powerful predictor of pathologic stage, but CEIPs that captured biologic behavior also emerged as predictive (eg, stage I and II vs stage III demonstrated an AUC of 0.83). No size measure was successful in the prediction of positive lymph nodes, but adding a CEIP that described tumor “homogeneity” significantly improved discrimination (AUC = 0.62; P = .003) compared with chance.CONCLUSIONSThe current results indicate that MRI phenotypes have promise for predicting breast cancer pathologic stage and lymph node status. Cancer 2016;122:748–757. © 2015 American Cancer Society.

BACKGROUNDWomen with benign breast disease (BBD) have an increased risk of developing breast cancer (BC). Nearly 30% of all BCs develop in women with prior BBD. Information regarding features of the expected number of BCs after BBD would enhance individualized surveillance and prevention strategies for these women. In the current study, the authors sought to characterize BCs developing in a large cohort of women with BBD.METHODSThe current study cohort included 13,485 women who underwent breast biopsy for mammographic or palpable concerns between 1967 and 2001. Biopsy slides were reviewed and classified as nonproliferative disease, proliferative disease without atypia, or atypical hyperplasia. BCs were identified by follow‐up questionnaires, medical records, and Tumor Registry data. BC tissues were obtained and reviewed.RESULTSWith median follow‐up of 15.8 years, 1273 women developed BC. The majority of BCs were invasive (81%), of which 61% were ductal, 13% were mixed ductal/lobular, and 14% were lobular. Approximately two‐thirds of the BC cases were intermediate or high grade, and 29% were lymph node positive. Cancer characteristics were similar across the 3 histologic categories of BBD, with a similar frequency of ductal carcinoma in situ, invasive disease, tumor size, time to invasive BC, histologic type of BC, lymph node positivity, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positivity. Women with atypical hyperplasia were found to have a higher frequency of estrogen receptor‐positive BC (91%) compared with women with proliferative disease without atypia (80%) or nonproliferative disease (85%) (P = .02).CONCLUSIONSA substantial percentage of all BCs develop in women with prior BBD. The majority of BCs after BBD are invasive tumors of ductal type, with a substantial number demonstrating lymph node positivity. Of all the BCs in the current study, 84% were estrogen receptor positive. Prevention therapy should be strongly encouraged in higher‐risk women with BBD. Cancer 2016;122:378–385. © 2015 American Cancer Society.

Abstract Purpose: Mammographic breast density is an established and strong risk factor for breast cancer. Recently, a number of common genetic susceptibility loci have been identified as risk factors for breast cancer. We present the first report on the relative contribution of 76 validated breast cancer susceptibility loci, in the context of a polygenic risk score (PRS), to the breast density and breast cancer association. We also examine whether the PRS improves prediction of the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) 5-year risk model above and beyond breast density and clinical factors included in the model. Methods: The study population included 1643 cases and 2397 controls from three independent epidemiologic studies: the Mayo Mammography Health Study (MMHS), the Mayo Clinic Breast Cancer Study (MCBCS), and the Bavarian Breast Cancer Cases and Control Study (BBCC). Data collected on patients in each of the studies included clinical risk factor, BI-RADS breast density [a) almost entirely fat; b) scattered fibroglandular densities; c) heterogeneously dense; and d) extremely dense] and genotypes for the 76 breast cancer susceptibility loci known at the time of the study. We formed a PRS from the reported per-SNP odds ratios (OR) for 76 known breast cancer susceptibility loci, and evaluated whether BI-RADS density and the PRS were independent risk factors for breast cancer, when adjusted for age, 1/BMI and study. We also incorporated the PRS (OR) into the BCSC 5-year risk model and estimated 5-year risk for the MMHS nested case-control study of 339 invasive cases, 765 controls. Results: BI-RADS density (p<0.0001) and PRS (p<0.0001) were independent risk factors for breast cancer that together showed greater discrimination of risk (AUC=0.69) than density (AUC=0.66; ΔAUC=0.029) or PRS score alone (AUC=0.68; ΔAUC=0.013; p<0.001). Relative to those with scattered fibroglandular densities and average (2nd quartile) PRS, women with extremely dense breasts and in the highest PRS quartile, had a 2.7 fold (95%CI: 1.7-4.1) increased risk of breast cancer, while those with fatty breasts and in the lowest PRS quartile had a reduced risk (OR=0.30, 95%CI: 0.18-0.51). Incorporation of the PRS into the BCSC risk model improved discrimination (ΔAUC=0.031, p=0.001), for a net reclassification improvement of 20% (95%CI: 11%-28%), split equally among cases (9%) and controls (11%). Conclusion: BI-RADS density and the PRS are both important risk factors for breast cancer that can be included in breast cancer risk models to improve prediction of this disease. Using these models to identify high and low-risk risk groups will facilitate improved tailored screening and primary prevention interventions. Citation Format: Celine M. Vachon, V. Shane Pankratz, Christopher G. Scott, Lothar Haeberle, Elad Ziv, Matthew R. Jensen, Kathleen R. Brandt, Dana H. Whaley, Janet E. Olson, Katharina Heusinger, Carolin C. Hack, Sebastian M. Jud, Matthias W. Beckmann, Jeffrey A. Tice, Kristen S. Purrington, Thomas A. Sellers, Karla Kerlikowske, Peter A. Fasching, Fergus J. Couch. The contribution of common breast cancer susceptibility loci to the breast density and breast cancer association and the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) risk model. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 105th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2014 Apr 5-9; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2014;74(19 Suppl):Abstract nr 940. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2014-940