Kerlikowske, Karla

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 Percent mammographic density (PMD) is a risk factor for estrogen receptor (ER)-positive and ER-negative invasive breast cancer (BC). Gene expression profiling has identified molecular signatures that classify invasive BC into distinct subtypes that vary in their clinical behavior, response to treatment and likely, etiology. Immunohistochemical (IHC) staining of tumor sections using antibody panels can be used to classify these ‘intrinsic’ molecular subtypes. We evaluated whether density measures [PMD, absolute dense area (DA) and non-dense area (NDA)], are associated equally with all ‘intrinsic’ molecular subtypes. Pooled analysis of six cohort or case-control studies included 3492 women with invasive BC and 10,148 without, who underwent screening mammography a median 4 years prior to diagnosis (for cases). PMD, DA, and NDA were assessed from digitized film-screen mammograms using a computer-assisted thresholding technique, and categorized as 0-10%, 11-25%, 26-50% and 51%+ (PMD) or into quartiles (DA and NDA). Receptor status was abstracted from pathology records and supplemented by IHC staining. We classified tumors as Luminal A (ER+ and/or PR+ and HER2- and grade 1 or 2), Luminal B (ER+ and/or PR+ and HER2+ or Luminal A and grade 3), HER2 expressing (HER2+/ER-/PR-) and triple negative (TN) (ER-/PR-/HER2-). For TN, we also differentiated basal-like tumors (positive for EGFR and/or CK 5/6) from unclassified (negative on both markers). We used polytomous logistic regression to calculate the odds ratio (OR) of each ‘intrinsic’ subtype of BC by categories of PMD, DA or NDA, adjusting for age, body mass index and study. We tested for statistical heterogeneity of associations by subtype. Of 3492 invasive BC cases, 2217 (63%) were classified as Luminal A, 747 (21%) as Luminal B, 159 (5%) as HER2 expressing, and 369 (11%) as TN. Of TN, 203 were evaluated for CK 5/6 and EGFR, with 167 (82%) classified as basal-like and 36 (18%) unclassified. PMD was associated with BC risk across all subtypes. For Luminal A, compared to women with 11-25% PMD (reference), women with 0-10% had a reduced risk of BC (OR = 0.63 [95% confidence interval: 0.55, 0.74]) while women with 26-50% had an OR = 1.5 [1.3, 1.7] and women with 51%+ had the highest risk, OR = 2.3 [2.0, 2.7]. Similar BC associations were seen across PMD categories when comparing the five subtypes (P-heterogeneity = 0.63). Similar trends were seen for DA and BC across the five subtypes (P-het = 0.25). NDA was inversely associated with BC across subtypes, and there was suggestion of a stronger inverse trend among HER2-expressing BC compared to other subtypes (P-het = 0.09). Our results suggest mammographic density measures are associated with all ‘intrinsic’ molecular subtypes. However, NDA may be more strongly inversely associated with HER2-expressing than other subtypes. Understanding the importance of density measures for BC subtypes has significance for subtype-specific risk models. Citation Format: Aaron D. Norman, Rulla M. Tamimi, Christopher G. Scott, Kimberly A. Bertrand, Matthew R. Jensen, Daniel W. Visscher, Fergus J. Couch, John Shepherd, Bo Fan, Yunn-Yi Chen, Lin Ma, Andrew Beck, Vernon S. Pankratz, Karla Kerlikowske, Celine M. Vachon. Association of mammographic density measures and breast cancer ‘intrinsic’ molecular subtypes. [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 2593.

Abstract Gene expression profiling has identified molecular subtypes that classify invasive breast cancers into distinct categories that vary in their clinical behavior and response to treatment. These subtypes highlight the many possible biologically and clinically distinct types of breast cancer. Immunohistochemical (IHC) staining of tumor sections using antibody panels has been used as a surrogate for the molecular subtypes identified through gene expression profiling, resulting in a set of intrinsic molecular subtypes. Given the heterogeneity within breast cancer, one might expect that different risk factors influence specific subtypes of breast cancer through various etiologic pathways. We evaluated whether percent mammographic density (MD), the proportion of fibroglandular or white tissue on a mammogram and one of the strongest and most consistent risk factors for breast cancer, is associated equally with all intrinsic molecular subtypes. Data were pooled from six cohort or case-control studies including 3389 women with invasive breast cancer and 9860 without, who underwent screening mammography. Percent MD was assessed from digitized film-screen mammograms (for cases, at a median 4 years prior to diagnosis) using a computer-assisted threshold technique, and categorized as 0-10%, 11-25%, 26-50% and 51%+. Receptor status was abstracted from clinical pathology records and supplemented by IHC staining of tumor sections or microarrays. With estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER2) information, we classified tumors into the intrinsic molecular subtypes: Luminal A ( ER+ and/or PR+ and HER2- and grade 1 or 2), Luminal B (ER+ and/or PR+ and HER2+ or Luminal A and grade 3), HER2 expressing (HER2+/ER-/PR-) and triple negative (ER-/PR-/HER2-). For cancers found to be triple negative (TN), we also stained for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and cytokeratins (CK) 5/6 to differentiate basal-like tumors (positive for EGFR and/or CK 5/6) from the unclassifieds (negative on both EGFR and CK 5/6). We used polytomous logistic regression to calculate the odds (OR) of each of the intrinsic subtypes of breast cancer by categories of percent MD, adjusting for age, BMI and study. Contrasts were constructed and tested within the polytomous model framework to investigate differences in the strength of association of percent MD across subtypes. On average, cases were slightly older (56.4 years [SD=11.3]) than controls (55.8 [10.9]). Of the 3389 invasive breast cancer cases, 2146 (63%) were classified as Luminal A, 709 (21%) as Luminal B, 169 (5%) as HER-2 expressing, and 365(11%) as triple negative (TN). Of the TN tumors, 203 had tumor tissue available and were evaluated for CK 5/6 and EGFR, with 167 (82%) classified as basal-like and 36 (18%) as unclassified. Percent (%) MD was associated with breast cancer risk across all intrinsic subtypes. For Luminal A, compared to women with 11-25% MD (reference), women with 0-10% MD had a reduced risk of breast cancer (OR=0.64 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.55, 0.74]) while women with 26-50% MD had an OR=1.5 (1.3,1.7) and women with 51%+ MD had the highest risk, OR=2.4 (2.0, 2.8). Similar associations were seen for Luminal B, HER2 expressing, and TN across percent MD categories. The small differences among the percent MD-breast cancer associations observed for the different subtypes were not statistically significant, either when comparing the four (Luminal A, Luminal B, HER-2 expressing and TN; p=0.61) or five categories of subtypes (Luminal A, Luminal B, HER-2 expressing, basal-like, unclassified; p=0.66). Our results suggest percent MD is a risk factor for all intrinsic molecular subtypes. Additional study is needed to examine whether these results hold for younger and older aged women. Understanding the importance of mammographic density measures for subtypes of breast cancer has significance for development of subtype-specific risk models. Citation Format: Celine Vachon, Rulla Tamimi, Yunn-Yi Chen, Christopher Scott, Kimberly Bertrand, Matthew Jensen, Daniel Visscher, Aaron Norman, Fergus Couch, John Shepherd, Bo Fan, Fang-Fang Wu, Lin Ma, Andrew Beck, Steve Cummings, V. Shane Pankratz, Karla Kerlikowske. Mammographic density: A risk factor for all breast cancers or only specific subtypes? [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Eighth AACR Conference on The Science of Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; Nov 13-16, 2015; Atlanta, GA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2016;25(3 Suppl):Abstract nr IA22.

Purpose Women with proliferative breast lesions are candidates for primary prevention, but few risk models incorporate benign findings to assess breast cancer risk. We incorporated benign breast disease (BBD) diagnoses into the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) risk model, the only breast cancer risk assessment tool that uses breast density. Methods We developed and validated a competing-risk model using 2000 to 2010 SEER data for breast cancer incidence and 2010 vital statistics to adjust for the competing risk of death. We used Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate the relative hazards for age, race/ethnicity, family history of breast cancer, history of breast biopsy, BBD diagnoses, and breast density in the BCSC. Results We included 1,135,977 women age 35 to 74 years undergoing mammography with no history of breast cancer; 17% of the women had a prior breast biopsy. During a mean follow-up of 6.9 years, 17,908 women were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer. The BCSC BBD model slightly overpredicted risk (expected-to-observed ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.06) and had modest discriminatory accuracy (area under the receiver operator characteristic curve, 0.665). Among women with proliferative findings, adding BBD to the model increased the proportion of women with an estimated 5-year risk of 3% or higher from 9.3% to 27.8% (P < .001). Conclusion The BCSC BBD model accurately estimates women's risk for breast cancer using breast density and BBD diagnoses. Greater numbers of high-risk women eligible for primary prevention after BBD diagnosis are identified using the BCSC BBD model.

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&lt;0.0001) and PRS (p&lt;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&lt;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

Abstract Introduction: We recently reported the percentage of mammographic density (MD) to be a breast cancer risk factor across tumor characteristics and age groups. Yet, we noted stronger associations for tumors of large size and positive lymph nodes across all ages, and ER-negative status among women ages &lt;55 years, suggesting high MD may play an important role in tumor aggressiveness, especially in younger women. We extend this initial study to investigate whether these associations with aggressive disease are due to the underlying associations of absolute dense or non-dense area, or both, with breast cancer risk. Methods: Data were pooled from six studies including 3517 women with invasive breast cancer and 8558 without. Dense area and non-dense area were assessed from digitized film-screen mammograms using a computer-assisted threshold technique. We standardized dense and non-dense area measurements made within each study and categorized into quartiles based on the control distribution for pooled analyses. We used polytomous logistic regression to calculate breast cancer odds according to tumor type, histopathological characteristics, and receptor (ER, PR) status by age (&lt;55, 55-64, and ≥65 years), adjusting for continuous age, body mass index, and study site. Results: Absolute dense area was associated with increased breast cancer risk [odds ratios (ORs) Q1 vs Q2: 0.67, Q3 vs Q2: 1.25, Q4 vs Q2: 1.62] and non-dense area was associated with decreased breast cancer risk (ORs: Q1 vs Q2: 1.44, Q3 vs Q2: 0.89, Q4 vs Q2: 0.71) overall and across all age groups. Positive associations for absolute dense area were observed across all invasive tumor characteristics. Stronger associations were noted for larger tumors across all ages (p-trend &lt;0.01). Among women &lt;55 years, stronger associations were observed for ER+ vs ER- [p-heterogeneity (het) = 0.02] and PR+ vs PR- tumors (p-het = 0.02). Non-dense area was inversely associated with all tumor characteristics evaluated except for tumors &lt;1.1 cm, for which no association was present. The inverse association was stronger for larger tumors, particularly for women &lt;55 years (p-trend &lt;0.01). Also among women &lt;55 years, a stronger inverse association with non-dense area was observed for ER- vs. ER+ tumors (p-het = 0.02). Conclusion: These results suggest the strong association we previously observed of high percent MD and ER-negative disease in women &lt;55 years could be explained by the low amount of non-dense area in these women. Further research is warranted to clarify the possible differential associations of absolute dense and non-dense area on breast cancer risk according to tumor characteristics. Citation Format: Kimberly A. Bertrand, Christopher G. Scott, Rulla M. Tamimi, Matthew R. Jensen, V. Shane Pankratz, Aaron Norman, John Shepherd, Yunn-Yi Chen, Karla Kerlikowske, Celine M. Vachon. Dense and non-dense mammographic area and risk of breast cancer by age and tumor characteristics. [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 3279. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2014-3279

Abstract Background: Mammographic density (MD) is a strong breast cancer risk factor. We previously reported associations of percent mammographic density (PMD) with larger and node-positive tumors across all ages, and estrogen receptor (ER)–negative status among women ages &lt;55 years. To provide insight into these associations, we examined the components of PMD [dense area (DA) and nondense area (NDA)] with breast cancer subtypes. Methods: Data were pooled from six studies including 4,095 breast cancers and 8,558 controls. DA and NDA were assessed from digitized film-screen mammograms and standardized across studies. Breast cancer odds by density phenotypes and age according to histopathologic characteristics and receptor status were calculated using polytomous logistic regression. Results: DA was associated with increased breast cancer risk [OR for quartiles: 0.65, 1.00 (Ref), 1.22, 1.55; Ptrend &lt;0.001] and NDA was associated with decreased risk [ORs for quartiles: 1.39, 1.00 (Ref), 0.88, 0.72; Ptrend &lt;0.001] across all ages and invasive tumor characteristics. There were significant trends in the magnitude of associations of both DA and NDA with breast cancer by increasing tumor size (Ptrend &lt; 0.001) but no differences by nodal status. Among women &lt;55 years, DA was more strongly associated with increased risk of ER+ versus ER− tumors (Phet = 0.02), while NDA was more strongly associated with decreased risk of ER− versus ER+ tumors (Phet = 0.03). Conclusions: DA and NDA have differential associations with ER+ versus ER− tumors that vary by age. Impact: DA and NDA are important to consider when developing age- and subtype-specific risk models. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 24(5); 798–809. ©2015 AACR.

Abstract BACKGROUND: Mammographic percent dense area, the percent ratio of dense to total breast area in a mammogram, is one of the strongest measures of a woman's risk of breast cancer. However, systematic differences have been observed between readers and mammography technologies (film and digital) that could cause clinically inconsistent associations with risk. The purpose of this study was to evaluate inter- and intra-reproducibility of percent dense area between readers and between film and digital technologies. METHODS: One hundred digitized film mammograms were randomly selected with 25 films in each of quartile of percent density and read by two readers at two different sites (Mayo Clinic and UCSF). The readers had extensive experience and were also jointly trained at university of Toronto using Cumulus software. After training, all films were read twice with at least one year between duplicate readings. The Mayo clinic reading used Cumulus while UCSF used custom semiautomatic software to estimate total and dense tissue area. In addition, digitized films and unprocessed full field digital mammograms of the same women were assessed by one reader. The time between the film and digital acquisitions ranged from nine to twenty-four months. Interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated for each comparison. RESULTS: The intra- and inter-observer ICCs, consistency for film images, were 0.96 (UCSF) and 0.97 (Mayo), and 0.96 (UCSF vs. Mayo). We found ICC between film and digital mammograms for percent dense area was 0.88. The digital mammogram had 9% significantly higher total breast area and 5% significantly lower percent density area compared to film. CONCLUSIONS: Similarly trained readers had a high reproducibility regardless of the software used. Our results suggest centralized reader training should enable pooling of film breast density results from different clinics. However, pooling film and digital results would need careful calibration due to lower measured percent dense areas than on film. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2011;71(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-08-03.

Purpose We determined whether the association between breast density and breast cancer risk and cancer severity differs according to menopausal status and postmenopausal hormone therapy (HT) use. Methods We collected data on 587,369 women who underwent 1,349,027 screening mammography examinations; 14,090 women were diagnosed with breast cancer. We calculated 5-year breast cancer risk from a survival model for subgroups of women classified by their Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS) breast density, age, menopausal status, and current HT use, assuming a body mass index of 25 kg/m 2 . Odds of advanced (ie, IIb, III, IV) versus early (ie, I, IIa) stage invasive cancer was calculated according to BIRADS density. Results Breast cancer risk was low among women with low density (BIRADS-1): women age 55 to 59 years, 5-year risk was 0.8% (95% CI, 0.6 to 0.9%) for non-HT users and 0.9% (95% CI, 0.7% to 1.1%) for estrogen and estrogen plus progestin users. Breast cancer risk was high among women with very high density (BIRADS-4), particularly estrogen plus progestin users: women age 55 to 59 years, 5-year risk was 2.4% (95% CI, 2.0% to 2.8%) for non-HT users, 3.0% (95% CI, 2.6% to 3.5%) for estrogen users, and 4.2% (95% CI, 3.7% to 4.6%) for estrogen plus progestin users. Advanced-stage breast cancer risk was increased 1.7-fold for postmenopausal HT users who had very high density (BIRADS-4) compared to those with average density (BIRADS-2). Conclusion Postmenopausal women with high breast density are at increased risk of breast cancer and should be aware of the added risk of taking HT, especially estrogen plus progestin.