Hall, Per

Image-derived artificial intelligence (AI) risk models have shown promise in short-term risk assessment for improving breast cancer (BC) screening. No image-derived long-term AI risk model for primary prevention has been developed and externally validated. Individuals aged 31 to 94 years were recruited between 2010 and 2020 in two population-based case cohorts (Olmsted County, Minnesota, US, and KARMA, Sweden) and one hospital-based case-control study (EMBED, Atlanta, US). Median follow-up in the case cohorts was 10 years, with BCs diagnosed through June 2022. Additional validation was performed in EMBED with 3-year follow-up. An AI risk model was developed in Sweden, and we report independent validation in Olmsted/KARMA/EMBED. Absolute 10-year risks were estimated at study entry. Time-dependent discriminatory performance [AUC( t )] and expected-to-observed events (E/O) were estimated. Comparisons were performed with clinical risk tools and the image-based Mirai tool. Across Olmsted/KARMA, 8696 individuals (mean age, 54.4±10.6) and 1633 individuals with incident BC (mean age, 57.0±10.6) were included. Average 10-year risks were 3.83 and 3.14%, and E/O ratios were 0.99 and 0.99. Ten-year AUC( t ) for invasive BCs were 0.72 in Olmsted and 0.72 in KARMA. Similar discriminatory results were observed in EMBED. Our AI risk tool performed significantly better than Mirai in Olmsted/KARMA/EMBED. In KARMA, in the top 10% of high-risk individuals, the AI risk tool predicted 33% of BCs compared with 23%/20%/24% predicted by Tyrer-Cuzick-v8/BCSC-v3/Mirai (all P < 0.01). The 10-year image-derived AI risk model showed significantly higher performance than clinical risk models and Mirai in diverse populations, supporting its clinical potential for primary prevention.

Background: Breast cancer polygenic risk scores (PRS) and traditional risk models (e.g., the Gail model [Gail]) are known to contribute largely independent information, but it is unclear how the overlap varies by ancestry, age, disease type (invasive breast cancer, DCIS), and risk threshold. Methods: In a retrospective case–control study, we evaluated risk prediction performance in 180,398 women (161,849 of European ancestry; 18,549 of Asian ancestry). Odds ratios (ORs) from logistic regression models and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were estimated. Results: PRS for invasive disease showed a stronger association in younger (<50 years) women (OR = 2.51, AUC = 0.622) than in women ≥ 50 years (OR = 2.06, AUC = 0.653) of European ancestry. PRS performance in Asians was lower (OR range = 1.62–1.64, AUC = 0.551–0.600). Gail performance was modest across groups and poor in younger Asian women (OR = 0.94–0.99, AUC = 0.523–0.533). Age interactions were observed for both PRS (p < 0.001) and Gail (p < 0.001) in Europeans, whereas in Asians, age interaction was observed only for Gail (invasive: p < 0.001; DCIS: p = 0.002). PRS identified more high-risk individuals than Gail in Asian populations, especially ≥50 years, while Gail identified more in Europeans. Overlap between PRS, Gail, and family history was limited at higher thresholds. Calibration analysis, comparing empirical and model-based ROC curves, showed divergence for both PRS and Gail (p < 0.001), which indicates miscalibration. In Europeans, family history and prior biopsies drove Gail discrimination. In younger Asians, age at first live birth was influential. Conclusions: PRS adds value to risk stratification beyond traditional tools, especially in younger women and Asian ancestry populations.

Background: Image-derived artificial intelligence (AI) risk models have shown promise in identifying high-risk women in the short term. The long-term performance of image-derived risk models expanded with clinical factors has not been investigated. Methods: We performed a case–cohort study of 8110 women aged 40–74 randomly selected from a Swedish mammography screening cohort initiated in 2010 together with 1661 incident BCs diagnosed before January 2022. The imaging-only AI risk model extracted mammographic features and age at screening. Additional lifestyle/familial risk factors were incorporated into the lifestyle/familial-expanded AI model. Absolute risks were calculated using the two models and the clinical Tyrer–Cuzick v8 model. Age-adjusted model performances were compared across the 10-year follow-up. Results: The AUCs of the lifestyle/familial-expanded AI risk model ranged from 0.75 (95%CI: 0.70–0.80) to 0.68 (95%CI: 0.66–0.69) 1–10 years after study entry. Corresponding AUCs were 0.72 (95%CI: 0.66–0.78) to 0.65 (95%CI: 0.63–0.66) for the imaging-only model and 0.62 (95%CI: 0.55–0.68) to 0.60 (95%CI: 0.58–0.61) for Tyrer–Cuzick v8. The increased performances were observed in multiple risk subgroups and cancer subtypes. Among the 5% of women at highest risk, the PPV was 5.8% using the lifestyle/familial-expanded model compared with 5.3% using the imaging-only model, p < 0.01, and 4.6% for Tyrer–Cuzick, p < 0.01. Conclusions: The lifestyle/familial-expanded AI risk model showed higher performance for both long-term and short-term risk assessment compared with imaging-only and Tyrer–Cuzick models.

PURPOSE Image-derived artificial intelligence–based short-term risk models for breast cancer have shown high discriminatory performance compared with traditional lifestyle/familial-based risk models. The long-term performance of image-derived risk models has not been investigated. METHODS We performed a case-cohort study of 8,604 randomly selected women within a mammography screening cohort initiated in 2010 in Sweden for women age 40-74 years. Mammograms, age, lifestyle, and familial risk factors were collected at study entry. In all, 2,028 incident breast cancers were identified through register matching in May 2022 (206 incident breast cancers were found in the subcohort). The image-based model extracted mammographic features (density, microcalcifications, masses, and left-right breast asymmetries of these features) and age from study entry mammograms. The Tyrer-Cuzick v8 risk model incorporates self-reported lifestyle and familial risk factors and mammographic density to estimate risk. Absolute risks were estimated, and age-adjusted AUC model performances (aAUCs) were compared across the 10-year period. RESULTS The aAUCs of the image-based risk model ranged from 0.74 (95% CI, 0.70 to 0.78) to 0.65 (95% CI, 0.63 to 0.66) for breast cancers developed 1-10 years after study entry; the corresponding Tyrer-Cuzick aAUCs were 0.62 (95% CI, 0.56 to 0.67) to 0.60 (95% CI, 0.58 to 0.61). For symptomatic cancers, the aAUCs for the image-based model were ≥0.75 during the first 3 years. Women with high and low mammographic density showed similar aAUCs. Throughout the 10-year follow-up, 20% of all women with breast cancers were deemed high-risk at study entry by the image-based risk model compared with 7.1% using the lifestyle familial-based model ( P < .01). CONCLUSION The image-based risk model outperformed the Tyrer-Cuzick v8 model for both short-term and long-term risk assessment and could be used to identify women who may benefit from supplemental screening and risk reduction strategies.

In this study we aim to examine gene–environment interactions (GxEs) between genes involved with estrogen metabolism and environmental factors related to estrogen exposure. GxE analyses were conducted with 1970 Korean breast cancer cases and 2052 controls in the case-control study, the Seoul Breast Cancer Study (SEBCS). A total of 11,555 SNPs from the 137 candidate genes were included in the GxE analyses with eight established environmental factors. A replication test was conducted by using an independent population from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC), with 62,485 Europeans and 9047 Asians. The GxE tests were performed by using two-step methods in GxEScan software. Two interactions were found in the SEBCS. The first interaction was shown between rs13035764 of NCOA1 and age at menarche in the GE|2df model (p-2df = 1.2 × 10−3). The age at menarche before 14 years old was associated with the high risk of breast cancer, and the risk was higher when subjects had homozygous minor allele G. The second GxE was shown between rs851998 near ESR1 and height in the GE|2df model (p-2df = 1.1 × 10−4). Height taller than 160 cm was associated with a high risk of breast cancer, and the risk increased when the minor allele was added. The findings were not replicated in the BCAC. These results would suggest specificity in Koreans for breast cancer risk.