Choudhury, Parichoy Pal

Abstract Introduction Incorporation of mammographic density to breast cancer risk models could improve risk stratification to tailor screening and prevention strategies according to risk. Robust evaluation of the value of adding mammographic density to models with comprehensive information on questionnaire-based risk factors and polygenic risk score is needed to determine its effectiveness in improving risk stratification of such models. Methods We used the Individualized Coherent Absolute Risk Estimator (iCARE) tool for risk model building and validation to incorporate density to a previously validated literature-based model with questionnaire-based risk factors and a 313-variant polygenic risk score (PRS). The model was evaluated for calibration and discrimination in three prospective cohorts of European-ancestry women (1,468 cases, 19,104 controls): US-based Nurses’ Health Study (NHS I and II) and Mayo Mammography Health Study (MMHS); and Sweden-based Karolinska Mammography Project for Risk Prediction of Breast Cancer (KARMA) study. Analyses were done separately for women younger (NHS II, KARMA) and older than 50 years (NHS I, MMHS, KARMA). Improvements in terms of risk stratification and reclassification proportions were assessed among European-ancestry women aged 50–70 years in US and Sweden. Results For women younger and older than 50 years, the model with questionnaire-based risk factors, PRS and density was generally well calibrated across risk with some evidence of miscalibration at the extremes of the risk distribution. Incorporation of density led to modest improvements risk discrimination beyond the model with questionnaire-based risk factors and PRS: the area under the curve (AUC) among younger women was 67.0% (95% CI: 63.5–70.6%) vs. 65.6% (95% CI: 61.9–69.3%) for models with and without density; and 66.1% (95% CI 64.4–67.8%) vs. 65.5% (95% CI: 63.8–67.2%) among older women. The model with density identified 18.4% of US women 50–70 years old ≥ 3% 5-year predicted risk (threshold used for recommending risk-reducing medication in the US), with 42.4% of future cases expected to occur in this group. At this threshold, 7.9% of US women were reclassified by adding density to the model, resulting in the identification of 2.8% of additional future cases. The model with density identified 10.3% of Swedish women ≥ 3% 5-year predicted risk, with 29.4% of future cases expected to occur in this group. At this threshold, 5.3% of women were reclassified with the addition of density, leading to the identification of an additional 4.4% of future cases. Conclusion Integrating density with questionnaire-based risk factors and PRS could potentially identify more women of European-ancestry with elevated risk of breast cancer in the United States and Sweden. Further investigations of the integrated model in non-European ancestry populations are needed prior to considering clinical applications.

Abstract Introduction: Incorporation of mammographic density to breast cancer risk models could improve risk stratification to tailor screening and prevention strategies according to risk. However, robust validation of such models in prospective cohort studies is needed to determine their accuracy in identifying women at different risk levels. Methods: We incorporated Breast Imaging and Reporting Data System (BI-RADS) breast density to a literature-based model with questionnaire-based risk factors and a 313-variant polygenic risk score (PRS). The Individualized Coherent Absolute Risk Estimator (iCARE) tool was used to build and validate a 5-year absolute risk model for breast cancer. The model was evaluated for calibration and discrimination in three prospective cohorts of women of European ancestry (1,468 cases, 19,104 controls): US-based Nurses’ Health Study (NHS I and II) and Mayo Mammography Health Study (MMHS); and Sweden-based Karolinska Mammography Project for Risk Prediction of Breast Cancer (KARMA) study. Analyses were done separately for women younger (NHS II, KARMA) and older than 50 years (NHS I, MMHS, KARMA). Improvements in risk stratification were assessed among US non-Hispanic White women aged 50-70 years. Results: For women younger than 50 years, the model with questionnaire-based risk factors, PRS and BI-RADS was well calibrated across risk deciles in NHS II, but overestimated risk at the highest risk decile in KARMA. For women 50 years or older, the model showed good calibration in all studies, with evidence of slight overestimation at the highest risk decile and underestimation at the lowest risk decile. The model with PRS and BI-RADS was well calibrated for women at high-risk in both age groups. Incorporation of BI-RADS to questionnaire-based risk factors and PRS improved risk discrimination: area under the curves (AUC) 67.0% (95% CI: 63.5-70.6%) vs. 65.6% (95% CI: 61.9-69.3%) for models with and without BI-RADS for younger women and 66.1% (95% CI 64.4-67.8%) vs. 65.5% (95% CI: 63.8-67.2%) for older women. The model with BI-RADS identified 18.4% population of non-Hispanic US women 50-70 years old above 3% 5-year risk (used for recommending risk-reducing medication in the US), with 42.4% of future cases expected to occur in this group. Addition of BI-RADS led to the reclassification of ~8.0% of US non-Hispanic White women aged 50-70 years at the high-risk threshold (3% 5-year risk), resulting in identification of 4.2% of additional future cases. Conclusion: Integrating BI-RADS with questionnaire-based risk factors and PRS resulted in improved risk stratification among women of European ancestry, with evidence of slight overestimation of risk for women at elevated risk. Additional validation of the integrated model in diverse populations is needed prior to considering clinical applications. Citation Format: Charlotta V. Mulder, Yon Ho Jee, Xin Yang, Christopher G. Scott, Chi Gao, Amber N. Hurson, Mikael Eriksson, Per Hall, Peter Kraft, Celine M. Vachon, Antonis C. Antoniou, Gretchen Gierach, Montserrat Garcia-Closas, Parichoy Pal Choudhury. Validation of an integrated breast cancer risk model with mammographic density in three prospective cohort studies [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2022; 2022 Apr 8-13. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(12_Suppl):Abstract nr 2256.

Abstract Background Rigorous evaluation of the calibration and discrimination of breast-cancer risk-prediction models in prospective cohorts is critical for applications under clinical guidelines. We comprehensively evaluated an integrated model incorporating classical risk factors and a 313-variant polygenic risk score (PRS) to predict breast-cancer risk. Methods Fifteen prospective cohorts from six countries with 239 340 women (7646 incident breast-cancer cases) of European ancestry aged 19–75 years were included. Calibration of 5-year risk was assessed by comparing expected and observed proportions of cases overall and within risk categories. Risk stratification for women of European ancestry aged 50–70 years in those countries was evaluated by the proportion of women and future cases crossing clinically relevant risk thresholds. Results Among women <50 years old, the median (range) expected-to-observed ratio for the integrated model across 15 cohorts was 0.9 (0.7–1.0) overall and 0.9 (0.7–1.4) at the highest-risk decile; among women ≥50 years old, these were 1.0 (0.7–1.3) and 1.2 (0.7–1.6), respectively. The proportion of women identified above a 3% 5-year risk threshold (used for recommending risk-reducing medications in the USA) ranged from 7.0% in Germany (∼841 000 of 12 million) to 17.7% in the USA (∼5.3 of 30 million). At this threshold, 14.7% of US women were reclassified by adding the PRS to classical risk factors, with identification of 12.2% of additional future cases. Conclusion Integrating a 313-variant PRS with classical risk factors can improve the identification of European-ancestry women at elevated risk who could benefit from targeted risk-reducing strategies under current clinical guidelines.

Abstract We evaluated the joint associations between a new 313-variant PRS (PRS313) and questionnaire-based breast cancer risk factors for women of European ancestry, using 72 284 cases and 80 354 controls from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. Interactions were evaluated using standard logistic regression and a newly developed case-only method for breast cancer risk overall and by estrogen receptor status. After accounting for multiple testing, we did not find evidence that per-standard deviation PRS313 odds ratio differed across strata defined by individual risk factors. Goodness-of-fit tests did not reject the assumption of a multiplicative model between PRS313 and each risk factor. Variation in projected absolute lifetime risk of breast cancer associated with classical risk factors was greater for women with higher genetic risk (PRS313 and family history) and, on average, 17.5% higher in the highest vs lowest deciles of genetic risk. These findings have implications for risk prevention for women at increased risk of breast cancer.

Abstract Background: Prospective validation of breast cancer risk models integrating classical risk factors and genetic variants is required for risk-stratified prevention and screening strategies. The objective of this study was to validate a breast cancer risk model integrating classical risk factors and a 313-variant polygenic risk score (PRS) in multiple prospective cohort studies, and to project five-year risk of breast cancer in six different countries. Methods: The study population included 7,529 cases and 230,103 controls from 14 prospective cohort studies in Australia, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, UK, and USA. We used the Individualized Coherent Absolute Risk Estimator (iCARE) tool for risk model building, validation, and risk projection. Expected five-year risk of invasive or in situ breast cancer was compared to observed risk, overall and within deciles of expected risk using goodness of fit statistics. We evaluated calibration of the relative risk through meta-analysis across cohorts, and of the absolute risk within each cohort. Model discrimination was evaluated using the area under the curve (AUC), and percentages of women crossing risk thresholds. Projections of five-year risk distributions were estimated for women of European ancestry aged 50-70 years in the general populations of these six countries. Results: Analysis showed overall good calibration of the integrated iCARE-based model relative risk for both women younger than 50 years (χ2=14.9, P=0.09) and aged 50 years or older (χ2=14.6, P=0.10), with a small overestimation of risk for women in the highest decile of expected risk (RR = 3.5 expected vs 2.3 (95% CI 1.6 to 3.2) observed for women <50 years; and 2.8 expected vs 2.3 (95% CI 2.0 to 2.7) observed for women 50+ years). The age-adjusted AUCs for the integrated model were 63.1 (95% CI 60.9 to 65.3) and 62.9 (95% CI 61.8 to 64.0), for the two age groups respectively. The calibration of absolute risk showed substantial variation across cohorts, particularly for the older group, but had no systematic bias. Model based projections in the general populations showed that compared to the population average, women in the 1st and 99th percentiles of the integrated risk score had relative risks 0.19 and 3.56 respectively. The proportion of women of European ancestry aged 50-70 years with a five-year risk greater than 3% (threshold for consideration of risk-lowering drugs by U.S. Preventive Services Task Force) ranged from 7.1% in Germany to 18.2% in the US, which corresponds to ~5.5 million women in the US. Conclusions: Five-year risk predictions from a model with classical risk factors and PRS are well calibrated and provide substantial risk stratification across multiple cohorts in six different countries. Further studies are needed to evaluate the clinical utility of the validated model for risk stratified screening and prevention of breast cancer. Citation Format: Parichoy Pal Choudhury, Amber Wilcox, Chi Gao, Brian Carter, Anika Husing, Mark Brook, Mikael Eriksson, Kara Martin, Chris Scott, Min Shi, Thomas Ahearn, Michael Jones, Nick Orr, Minouk Schoemaker, Kamila Czene, Jenny Chang-Claude, Jacques Simard, Doug Easton, Marjanka K. Schmidt, Dale Sandler, Clarice R. Weinberg, Celine Vachon, Roger Milne, Per Hall, Anthony Swerdlow, Rudolph Kaaks, Myrto Barrdahl, Mia Gaudet, Antonis Antoniou, Peter Kraft, Montserrat Garcia-Closas, Nilanjan Chatterjee. Validation of breast cancer risk model incorporating classical risk factors and polygenic risk scores in 14 prospective cohort studies in 6 countries [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2019; 2019 Mar 29-Apr 3; Atlanta, GA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 962.