Czene, Kamila

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.

Abstract Studies have identified genetic and epidemiologic factors associated with mammographic density (MD) phenotypes. However, MD-associated genetic variants only account for a small proportion of the total estimated heritability. Interrogating interactions between genetic and epidemiologic factors could potentially identify additional MD-associated loci, expand our understanding of the genetic basis of MD phenotypes, and clarify how epidemiologic factors modulate relationships between genetic variants and MD. We conducted six separate genome-wide, gene–environment (GxE) interaction analyses, applying 2 degrees of freedom (df) and 1df interaction tests, for each of three MD phenotypes (percent density, dense area (DA), and nondense area (NDA)). The six epidemiologic factors considered were height, ever parous, parity, ever menopausal hormone therapy, ever breastfeeding, and months of breastfeeding. We included European ancestry participants from multiple studies within the Markers of Density consortium and the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (n = 4895-16 218 depending on specific analyses). We identified 11 loci with genome-wide significant (P &lt; 5 × 10−8) interaction tests including two novel common genetic signals interacting with parity (8p21.2) and ever breastfeeding (19p13.2) for NDA. Our results suggest that epidemiologic risk factors might influence relationships between common genetic variants and MD phenotypes at particular genomic loci.

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.

AbstractBackgroundReproductive factors have been shown to be differentially associated with risk of estrogen receptor (ER)-positive and ER-negative breast cancer. However, their associations with intrinsic-like subtypes are less clear.MethodsAnalyses included up to 23 353 cases and 71 072 controls pooled from 31 population-based case-control or cohort studies in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium across 16 countries on 4 continents. Polytomous logistic regression was used to estimate the association between reproductive factors and risk of breast cancer by intrinsic-like subtypes (luminal A-like, luminal B-like, luminal B-HER2–like, HER2-enriched–like, and triple-negative breast cancer) and by invasiveness. All statistical tests were 2-sided.ResultsCompared with nulliparous women, parous women had a lower risk of luminal A-like, luminal B-like, luminal B-HER2–like, and HER2-enriched–like disease. This association was apparent only after approximately 10 years since last birth and became stronger with increasing time (odds ratio [OR] = 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.49 to 0.71; and OR = 0.36, 95% CI = 0.28 to 0.46 for multiparous women with luminal A-like tumors 20 to less than 25 years after last birth and 45 to less than 50 years after last birth, respectively). In contrast, parous women had a higher risk of triple-negative breast cancer right after their last birth (for multiparous women: OR = 3.12, 95% CI = 2.02 to 4.83) that was attenuated with time but persisted for decades (OR = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.79 to 1.34, for multiparous women 25 to less than 30 years after last birth). Older age at first birth (Pheterogeneity &lt; .001 for triple-negative compared with luminal A-like breast cancer) and breastfeeding (Pheterogeneity &lt; .001 for triple-negative compared with luminal A-like breast cancer) were associated with lower risk of triple-negative breast cancer but not with other disease subtypes. Younger age at menarche was associated with higher risk of all subtypes; older age at menopause was associated with higher risk of luminal A-like but not triple-negative breast cancer. Associations for in situ tumors were similar to luminal A-like.ConclusionsThis large and comprehensive study demonstrates a distinct reproductive risk factor profile for triple-negative breast cancer compared with other subtypes, with implications for the understanding of disease etiology and risk prediction.

A large genotyping project within the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC) recently identified 41 associations between single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and overall breast cancer (BC) risk. We investigated whether the effects of these 41 SNPs, as well as six SNPs associated with estrogen receptor (ER) negative BC risk are modified by 13 environmental risk factors for BC. Data from 22 studies participating in BCAC were pooled, comprising up to 26,633 cases and 30,119 controls. Interactions between SNPs and environmental factors were evaluated using an empirical Bayes‐type shrinkage estimator. Six SNPs showed interactions with associated p ‐values ( p int ) <1.1 × 10 −3 . None of the observed interactions was significant after accounting for multiple testing. The Bayesian False Discovery Probability was used to rank the findings, which indicated three interactions as being noteworthy at 1% prior probability of interaction. SNP rs6828523 was associated with increased ER‐negative BC risk in women ≥170 cm (OR = 1.22, p = 0.017), but inversely associated with ER‐negative BC risk in women <160 cm (OR = 0.83, p = 0.039, p int = 1.9 × 10 −4 ). The inverse association between rs4808801 and overall BC risk was stronger for women who had had four or more pregnancies (OR = 0.85, p = 2.0 × 10 −4 ), and absent in women who had had just one (OR = 0.96, p = 0.19, p int = 6.1 × 10 −4 ). SNP rs11242675 was inversely associated with overall BC risk in never/former smokers (OR = 0.93, p = 2.8 × 10 −5 ), but no association was observed in current smokers (OR = 1.07, p = 0.14, p int = 3.4 × 10 −4 ). In conclusion, recently identified BC susceptibility loci are not strongly modified by established risk factors and the observed potential interactions require confirmation in independent studies.

ABSTRACTGenes that alter disease risk only in combination with certain environmental exposures may not be detected in genetic association analysis. By using methods accounting for gene‐environment (G × E) interaction, we aimed to identify novel genetic loci associated with breast cancer risk. Up to 34,475 cases and 34,786 controls of European ancestry from up to 23 studies in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium were included. Overall, 71,527 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), enriched for association with breast cancer, were tested for interaction with 10 environmental risk factors using three recently proposed hybrid methods and a joint test of association and interaction. Analyses were adjusted for age, study, population stratification, and confounding factors as applicable. Three SNPs in two independent loci showed statistically significant association: SNPs rs10483028 and rs2242714 in perfect linkage disequilibrium on chromosome 21 and rs12197388 in ARID1B on chromosome 6. While rs12197388 was identified using the joint test with parity and with age at menarche (P‐values = 3 × 10−07), the variants on chromosome 21 q22.12, which showed interaction with adult body mass index (BMI) in 8,891 postmenopausal women, were identified by all methods applied. SNP rs10483028 was associated with breast cancer in women with a BMI below 25 kg/m2 (OR = 1.26, 95% CI 1.15–1.38) but not in women with a BMI of 30 kg/m2 or higher (OR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.72–1.11, P for interaction = 3.2 × 10−05). Our findings confirm comparable power of the recent methods for detecting G × E interaction and the utility of using G × E interaction analyses to identify new susceptibility loci.