Jensen, Matthew R.

Abstract Purpose: The evidence on associations of mammographic breast density with breast cancer risk by combination of tumor aggressiveness features is limited. We examined associations of breast density phenotypes with risk of aggressive breast tumor features by menopausal status, and current postmenopausal hormone therapy. Methods: This study included 2,635 invasive breast cancer cases and 4,059 controls from participants of four nested case-control studies within four established cohorts: the Mayo Mammography Health Study, the Nurses Health Study, Nurses Health Study II, and San Francisco Mammography Registry. Percent breast density, absolute dense and non-dense areas were assessed from digitized film-screen mammograms using a computer-assisted threshold technique and standardized across studies. We used polytomous logistic regression to quantify the associations of breast density measures with risk of breast tumor aggressiveness (defined as presence of 2 or more of the following tumor characteristics: size ≥2cm, grade 2 or 3, or positive nodes), stratified by menopausal status and current hormone therapy (i.e., premenopausal, postmenopausal/estrogen therapy, postmenopausal/combined therapy, and postmenopausal/no hormones). We also evaluated differences in the strength of associations across categories. In a secondary analysis, we examined these associations while excluding cases with mammogram date within 2 years of diagnosis. Results: Positive associations of percent density and dense area and inverse associations of non-dense area with breast cancer risk were stronger in aggressive vs. non-aggressive tumors (OR=2.62, 95%CI 2.08-3.31 vs. OR=1.94, 95%CI 1.62-2.33 for percent density≥51% vs. 11-25%, p-heterogeneity=0.001; OR=1.89, 95%CI 1.54-2.31 vs. OR=1.65, 95%CI 1.41-1.93 for dense area 4th vs. 2nd quartile, p-heterogeneity=0.015; OR=0.56, 95%CI 0.44-0.72 vs. OR=0.71, 95%CI 0.59-0.86 for non-dense area 4th vs 2nd quartile, p-heterogeneity=0.007, respectively). These patterns were similar across all menopausal and hormone therapy groups (P-interactions=0.62, 0.76, and 0.23, for percent density, dense area and non-dense area, respectively). Excluding cases diagnosed within 2 years of mammography resulted in similar findings. Conclusion: Mammographic density phenotypes were more strongly associated with aggressive cancer (having two or more of the following: size ≥2cm, grade 2 or 3, or positive nodes) vs. non-aggressive types of breast cancer across categories of menopause and hormone therapy types. Citation Format: Lusine Yaghjyan, Rulla Tamimi, Kimberly Bertrand, Christopher G. Scott, Matthew R. Jensen, Shane Pankratz, Kathleen Brandt, Daniel Visscher, Aaron Norman, Fergus Cough, John Shepherd, Bo Fan, Yunn-Yi Chen, Lin Ma, Andrew H. Beck, Steven R. Cummings, Karla Kerlikowske, Celine Vachon. Interaction of mammographic breast density with menopausal status and postmenopausal hormone use in relation to the risk of aggressive breast cancer subtypes. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference: Improving Cancer Risk Prediction for Prevention and Early Detection; Nov 16-19, 2016; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2017;26(5 Suppl):Abstract nr B27.

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 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.

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<0.0001) and PRS (p<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<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 <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 (<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 <0.01). Among women <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 <1.1 cm, for which no association was present. The inverse association was stronger for larger tumors, particularly for women <55 years (p-trend <0.01). Also among women <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 <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 <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 <0.001] and NDA was associated with decreased risk [ORs for quartiles: 1.39, 1.00 (Ref), 0.88, 0.72; Ptrend <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 < 0.001) but no differences by nodal status. Among women <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 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