Heine, John

Abstract High alcohol intake and breast density increase breast cancer (BC) risk, but their interrelationship is unknown. We examined whether volumetric density modifies and/or mediates the alcohol-BC association. BC cases (n = 2233) diagnosed from 2006 to 2013 in the San Francisco Bay area had screening mammograms 6 or more months before diagnosis; controls (n = 4562) were matched on age, mammogram date, race or ethnicity, facility, and mammography machine. Logistic regression was used to estimate alcohol-BC associations adjusted for age, body mass index, and menopause; interaction terms assessed modification. Percent mediation was quantified as the ratio of log (odds ratios [ORs]) from models with and without density measures. Alcohol consumption was associated with increased BC risk (2-sided Ptrend = .004), as were volumetric percent density (OR = 1.45 per SD, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.36 to 1.56) and dense volume (OR = 1.30, 95% CI = 1.24 to 1.37). Breast density did not modify the alcohol-BC association (2-sided P > .10 for all). Dense volume mediated 25.0% (95% CI = 5.5% to 44.4%) of the alcohol-BC association (2-sided P = .01), suggesting alcohol may partially increase BC risk by increasing fibroglandular tissue.

Abstract Background: Alcohol intake and breast density are established risk factors for breast cancer (BC). A few studies suggest breast density is on the causal pathway between alcohol and BC but the literature is not consistent. We examine the interrelationship between alcohol, volumetric breast density and BC risk, specifically whether there is a stronger alcohol and BC association among women with dense breasts and/or whether breast density mediates the alcohol and BC association. Methods: We conducted a nested case-control study within the San Francisco Mammography Registry consisting of four breast screening centers. From 2006-2013, through linkages with the California cancer registry, we identified 2572 women diagnosed with BC who had screening mammograms performed at least six months prior to diagnosis. Controls (5119) were matched to cases on age, date of earliest mammogram, race/ethnicity, facility, and mammography machine. We obtained the raw format of digital mammograms on average 3.1 (standard deviation (SD) =1.7) years prior to diagnosis or corresponding date for controls. We ascertained usual daily alcohol intake and other risk factors from a clinical questionnaire at time of mammography. We obtained BI-RADS density from clinical records and used VolparaTM to assess volumetric percent density, dense volume and non-dense volume from the mammogram. We examined the associations of daily alcohol intake (none, one or less, two or more drinks per day) and volumetric density phenotypes (per 1 SD) with BC risk using logistic regression (odds ratios, OR; 95% confidence intervals, CI; and trend tests). We examined deviation from multiplicative interaction using chi-squared tests. We evaluated mediation of the alcohol and BC association by volumetric density measures using logistic regression to estimate the association between alcohol use and BC with and without adjustment for density measures. Percent mediation was estimated using the differences in the log OR estimates from the two models. All models were adjusted for age, 1/BMI and menopause and matching factors. Analyses were also stratified by menopausal status. Results: Alcohol intake was available on 2233 cases and 4562 controls, 88% of those eligible. BC cases and controls had similar age (57.2 years (SD=11.5) vs. 57.1 years (SD=11.5)), BMI (25.3 kg/m2 (SD=5.3) vs. 24.9 kg/ m2 (SD=5.1)) and race (69.0% vs. 68.2% Caucasian). Cases were more likely to drink alcohol daily than controls (52.1% vs. 49.0%), in particular two or more drinks per day (14.8% vs. 13.2%). Alcohol was associated with increased BC risk (OR=1.14, 95% CI:1.02-1.27, for one or less drinks per day and OR=1.22, 95% CI:1.05-1.42 for 2 or more drinks per day) compared to non-drinkers (p-trend=0.004). Percent volumetric density (OR=1.45 per SD, 95%CI: 1.36-1.56,) and dense volume (OR=1.30, 95% CI: 1.24-1.37) were also positively associated with BC risk; non-dense volume was inversely associated (OR=0.93, 95%CI: 0.86-1.01). Associations were similar by menopausal subgroup. There was no evidence for a differential association of alcohol and breast cancer risk by dense breasts assessed using any of the density phenotypes examined (all P’s>0.1). However, the association between alcohol and overall risk of BC was partially mediated by dense volume among all women (percent mediated=25%, P=0.01) and postmenopausal women (percent mediated=19%, P=0.03). Conclusions: The association of daily alcohol intake and breast cancer risk was similar among women with dense and non-dense breasts. However, dense volume partially mediated the association between alcohol and risk of breast cancer, particularly among postmenopausal women, suggesting that alcohol partially influences breast cancer risk through changes in breast tissue composition. Citation Format: Celine Marie Vachon, Christopher G. Scott, Stacey J Winham, John A Shepherd, Kathleen R Brandt, Matthew R Jensen, Carrie B Hruska, John J Heine, V. Shane Pankratz, Karla Kerlikowske. Association of daily alcohol intake, volumetric density and breast cancer risk [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-08-02.

Abstract Background: Mammographic breast density declines during menopause. We assessed changes in volumetric breast density across the menopausal transition and factors that influence these changes. Methods: Women without a history of breast cancer, who had full field digital mammograms during both pre- and postmenopausal periods, at least 2 years apart, were sampled from four facilities within the San Francisco Mammography Registry from 2007 to 2013. Dense breast volume (DV) was assessed using Volpara on mammograms across the time period. Annualized change in DV from pre- to postmenopause was estimated using linear mixed models adjusted for covariates and per-woman random effects. Multiplicative interactions were evaluated between premenopausal risk factors and time to determine whether these covariates modified the annualized changes. Results: Among the 2,586 eligible women, 1,802 had one premenopausal and one postmenopausal mammogram, 628 had an additional perimenopausal mammogram, and 156 had two perimenopausal mammograms. Women experienced an annualized decrease in DV [−2.2 cm3 (95% confidence interval, −2.7 to −1.7)] over the menopausal transition. Declines were greater among women with a premenopausal DV above the median (54 cm3) versus below (DV, −3.5 cm3 vs. −1.0 cm3; P < 0.0001). Other breast cancer risk factors, including race, body mass index, family history, alcohol, and postmenopausal hormone therapy, had no effect on change in DV over the menopausal transition. Conclusions: High premenopausal DV was a strong predictor of greater reductions in DV across the menopausal transition. Impact: We found that few factors other than premenopausal density influence changes in DV across the menopausal transition, limiting targeted prevention efforts.

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.

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.

Abstract INTRODUCTION: Mammographic breast density is a strong risk factor for breast cancer (BC). We established the Mayo Mammography Health Study (MMHS) cohort study at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota (MN) to examine the association of breast density with BC. We evaluated the influence of the image acquisition technique on the density and BC association. METHODS: From October 2003 to September 2006, all women scheduled for screening mammography at the Mayo Clinic were invited to participate. Eligible women were residents of MN, Iowa (IA) or Wisconsin (WI); age 35+; and had no personal history of BC. A risk factor questionnaire, consent form and permission to link to tumor registries were obtained. Incident BC was identified through 2009 by linkage to the Mayo and state cancer registries. A case-cohort of all incident BCs and 2300 randomly selected women (the subcohort) were used to examine the association of breast density and BC using digitized film mammograms at the time of enrollment while controlling for the influence of the acquisition parameters (peak kilovoltage, milliampere-second, and compressed breast thickness). Two density measures were considered: a quantitative percent density (PD) measure estimated using the computer-assisted thresholding program, Cumulus (University of Toronto), and the 4-category clinical BI-RADS measure. Proportional hazards regression was used to calculate hazards ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for BC associated with quartiles of PD (0-6.2%,6.3-14.9%, 15.0-25.7% and 25.8%+) and BI-RADS categories 1-4 (almost entirely fatty to extremely dense). All models included age, postmenopausal hormone use (PMH), BMI, and menopausal status. The influence of acquisition parameters was evaluated by examining models with and without their inclusion. RESULTS: A total of 20,982 (50%) women participated in MMHS; 1058 (5%) with a prior history of BC were excluded, for a total cohort of 19,924. Compared to nonresponders, responders were younger (57.5 vs. 58.4 yrs), more likely to have ever used PMH (45% vs. 33%), and more likely to have a BC family history (19% vs 16%). The case-cohort consisted of 317 incident cases and 2300 women in the subcohort. Women were excluded from the current analysis if PD could not be estimated or if acquisition parameters were not available, leaving 249 cases and 1937 in the subcohort. As expected, PD was associated with BC [HR (95% CI): 1.0 (REF), 2.1 (1.4-3.1), 3.0 (2.0-4.5), and 4.6 (3.0-7.0) for quartiles; p-trend<0.001]. Controlling for acquisition parameters attenuated the association [HR (95% CI): 1.0 (REF), 2.3 (1.5-3.4), 2.4 (1.6-3.7), and 3.0 (1.8-5.0) for quartiles; p-trend<0.001]. Results for BI-RADS density were similar to those for PD. CONCLUSION: This study confirms that breast density is a significant risk factor for BC and demonstrates that the acquisition technique confounds the density and BC risk association. Citation Format: {Authors}. {Abstract title} [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 102nd Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2011 Apr 2-6; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2011;71(8 Suppl):Abstract nr 3716. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2011-3716

AbstractMammographic percent density (PD) is a strong risk factor for breast cancer, but there has been relatively little systematic evaluation of other features in mammographic images that might additionally predict breast cancer risk. We evaluated the association of a large number of image texture features with risk of breast cancer using a clinic-based case-control study of digitized film mammograms, all with screening mammograms before breast cancer diagnosis. The sample was split into training (123 cases and 258 controls) and validation (123 cases and 264 controls) data sets. Age-adjusted and body mass index (BMI)–adjusted odds ratios (OR) per SD change in the feature, 95% confidence intervals, and the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) were obtained using logistic regression. A bootstrap approach was used to identify the strongest features in the training data set, and results for features that validated in the second half of the sample were reported using the full data set. The mean age at mammography was 64.0 ± 10.2 years, and the mean time from mammography to breast cancer was 3.7 ± 1.0 (range, 2.0-5.9 years). PD was associated with breast cancer risk (OR, 1.49; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-1.78). The strongest features that validated from each of several classes (Markovian, run length, Laws, wavelet, and Fourier) showed similar ORs as PD and predicted breast cancer at a similar magnitude (AUC = 0.58-0.60) as PD (AUC = 0.58). All of these features were automatically calculated (unlike PD) and measure texture at a coarse scale. These features were moderately correlated with PD (r = 0.39-0.76), and after adjustment for PD, each of the features attenuated only slightly and retained statistical significance. However, simultaneous inclusion of these features in a model with PD did not significantly improve the ability to predict breast cancer. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009;18(3):837–45)

Abstract Breast density is a strong risk factor for breast cancer; however, no standard assessment method exists. An automated breast density method was modified and compared with a semi-automated, user-assisted thresholding method (Cumulus method) and the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System four-category tissue composition measure for their ability to predict future breast cancer risk. The three estimation methods were evaluated in a matched breast cancer case-control (n = 372 and n = 713, respectively) study at the Mayo Clinic using digitized film mammograms. Mammograms from the craniocaudal view of the noncancerous breast were acquired on average 7 years before diagnosis. Two controls with no previous history of breast cancer from the screening practice were matched to each case on age, number of previous screening mammograms, final screening exam date, menopausal status at this date, interval between earliest and latest available mammograms, and residence. Both Pearson linear correlation (R) and Spearman rank correlation (r) coefficients were used for comparing the three methods as appropriate. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate the risk for breast cancer (odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals) associated with the quartiles of percent breast density (automated breast density method, Cumulus method) or Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System categories. The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve was estimated and used to compare the discriminatory capabilities of each approach. The continuous measures (automated breast density method and Cumulus method) were highly correlated with each other (R = 0.70) but less with Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (r = 0.49 for automated breast density method and r = 0.57 for Cumulus method). Risk estimates associated with the lowest to highest quartiles of automated breast density method were greater in magnitude [odds ratios: 1.0 (reference), 2.3, 3.0, 5.2; P trend < 0.001] than the corresponding quartiles for the Cumulus method [odds ratios: 1.0 (reference), 1.7, 2.1, and 3.8; P trend < 0.001] and Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System [odds ratios: 1.0 (reference), 1.6, 1.5, 2.6; P trend < 0.001] method. However, all methods similarly discriminated between case and control status; areas under the receiver operator characteristic curve were 0.64, 0.63, and 0.61 for automated breast density method, Cumulus method, and Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, respectively. The automated breast density method is a viable option for quantitatively assessing breast density from digitized film mammograms. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008;17(11):3090–7)