Jee, Yon Ho

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.