Search

Mammograms contain information that predicts breast cancer risk. We developed two novel mammogram-based breast cancer risk measures based on image brightness (Cirrocumulus) and texture (Cirrus). Their risk prediction when fitted together, and with an established measure of conventional mammographic density (Cumulus), is not known. We used three studies consisting of: 168 interval cases and 498 matched controls; 422 screen-detected cases and 1197 matched controls; and 354 younger-diagnosis cases and 944 controls frequency-matched for age at mammogram. We conducted conditional and unconditional logistic regression analyses of individually- and frequency-matched studies, respectively. We estimated measure-specific risk gradients as the change in odds per standard deviation of controls after adjusting for age and body mass index (OPERA) and calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). For interval, screen-detected and younger-diagnosis cancer risks, the best fitting models (OPERAs [95% confidence intervals]) involved: Cumulus (1.81 [1.41-2.31]) and Cirrus (1.72 [1.38-2.14]); Cirrus (1.49 [1.32-1.67]) and Cirrocumulus (1.16 [1.03 to 1.31]); and Cirrus (1.70 [1.48 to 1.94]) and Cirrocumulus (1.46 [1.27-1.68]), respectively. The AUCs were: 0.73 [0.68-0.77], 0.63 [0.60-0.66], and 0.72 [0.69-0.75], respectively. Combined, our new mammogram-based measures have twice the risk gradient for screen-detected and younger-diagnosis breast cancer (P <= 10-12), have at least the same discriminatory power as the current polygenic risk score, and are more correlated with causal factors than conventional mammographic density. Discovering more information about breast cancer risk from mammograms could help enable risk-based personalised breast screening.Copyright © 2020 UICC

Interval breast cancers (those diagnosed between recommended mammography screens) generally have poorer outcomes and are more common among women with dense breasts. We aimed to develop a risk model for interval breast cancer. We conducted a nested case-control study within the Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study involving 168 interval breast cancer patients and 498 matched control subjects. We measured breast density using the CUMULUS software. We recorded first-degree family history by questionnaire, measured body mass index (BMI) and calculated age-adjusted breast tissue aging, a novel measure of exposure to estrogen and progesterone based on the Pike model. We fitted conditional logistic regression to estimate odds ratio (OR) or odds ratio per adjusted standard deviation (OPERA) and calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). The stronger risk associations were for unadjusted percent breast density (OPERA = 1.99; AUC = 0.66), more so after adjusting for age and BMI (OPERA = 2.26; AUC = 0.70), and for family history (OR = 2.70; AUC = 0.56). When the latter two factors and their multiplicative interactions with age-adjusted breast tissue aging (p = 0.01 and 0.02, respectively) were fitted, the AUC was 0.73 (95% CI 0.69-0.77), equivalent to a ninefold interquartile risk ratio. In summary, compared with using dense breasts alone, risk discrimination for interval breast cancers could be doubled by instead using breast density, BMI, family history and hormonal exposure. This would also give women with dense breasts, and their physicians, more information about the major consequence of having dense breasts-an increased risk of developing an interval breast cancer.Copyright © 2019 The Authors. International Journal of Cancer published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of UICC

Mammograms contain information that predicts breast cancer risk. We developed two novel mammogram-based breast cancer risk measures based on image brightness (Cirrocumulus) and texture (Cirrus). Their risk prediction when fitted together, and with an established measure of conventional mammographic density (Cumulus), is not known. We used three studies consisting of: 168 interval cases and 498 matched controls; 422 screen-detected cases and 1197 matched controls; and 354 younger-diagnosis cases and 944 controls frequency-matched for age at mammogram. We conducted conditional and unconditional logistic regression analyses of individually- and frequency-matched studies, respectively. We estimated measure-specific risk gradients as the change in odds per standard deviation of controls after adjusting for age and body mass index (OPERA) and calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). For interval, screen-detected and younger-diagnosis cancer risks, the best fitting models (OPERAs [95% confidence intervals]) involved: Cumulus (1.81 [1.41-2.31]) and Cirrus (1.72 [1.38-2.14]); Cirrus (1.49 [1.32-1.67]) and Cirrocumulus (1.16 [1.03 to 1.31]); and Cirrus (1.70 [1.48 to 1.94]) and Cirrocumulus (1.46 [1.27-1.68]), respectively. The AUCs were: 0.73 [0.68-0.77], 0.63 [0.60-0.66], and 0.72 [0.69-0.75], respectively. Combined, our new mammogram-based measures have twice the risk gradient for screen-detected and younger-diagnosis breast cancer (P ≤ 10-12 ), have at least the same discriminatory power as the current polygenic risk score, and are more correlated with causal factors than conventional mammographic density. Discovering more information about breast cancer risk from mammograms could help enable risk-based personalised breast screening.

This commentary is about predicting a woman's breast cancer risk from her mammogram, building on the work of Wolfe, Boyd and Yaffe on mammographic density. We summarise our efforts at finding new mammogram-based risk predictors, and how they combine with the conventional mammographic density, in predicting risk for interval cancers and screen-detected breast cancers across different ages at diagnosis and for both Caucasian and Asian women. Using the OPERA (odds ratio per adjusted standard deviation) concept, in which the risk gradient is measured on an appropriate scale that takes into account other factors adjusted for by design or analysis, we show that our new mammogram-based measures are the strongest of all currently known breast cancer risk factors in terms of risk discrimination on a population-basis. We summarise our findings graphically using a path diagram in which conventional mammographic density predicts interval cancer due to its role in masking, while the new mammogram-based risk measures could have a causal effect on both interval and screen-detected breast cancer. We discuss attempts by others to pursue this line of investigation, the measurement challenge that allows different measures to be compared in an open and transparent manner on the same datasets, as well as the biological and public health consequences.

Interval breast cancers (those diagnosed between recommended mammography screens) generally have poorer outcomes and are more common among women with dense breasts. We aimed to develop a risk model for interval breast cancer. We conducted a nested case-control study within the Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study involving 168 interval breast cancer patients and 498 matched control subjects. We measured breast density using the CUMULUS software. We recorded first-degree family history by questionnaire, measured body mass index (BMI) and calculated age-adjusted breast tissue aging, a novel measure of exposure to estrogen and progesterone based on the Pike model. We fitted conditional logistic regression to estimate odds ratio (OR) or odds ratio per adjusted standard deviation (OPERA) and calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). The stronger risk associations were for unadjusted percent breast density (OPERA = 1.99; AUC = 0.66), more so after adjusting for age and BMI (OPERA = 2.26; AUC = 0.70), and for family history (OR = 2.70; AUC = 0.56). When the latter two factors and their multiplicative interactions with age-adjusted breast tissue aging (p = 0.01 and 0.02, respectively) were fitted, the AUC was 0.73 (95% CI 0.69-0.77), equivalent to a ninefold interquartile risk ratio. In summary, compared with using dense breasts alone, risk discrimination for interval breast cancers could be doubled by instead using breast density, BMI, family history and hormonal exposure. This would also give women with dense breasts, and their physicians, more information about the major consequence of having dense breasts-an increased risk of developing an interval breast cancer.

Background: Case-control studies show that mammographic density is a better risk factor when defined at higher than conventional pixel-brightness thresholds. We asked if this applied to interval and/or screen-detected cancers. Method(s): We conducted a nested case-control study within the prospective Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study including 168 women with interval and 422 with screen-detected breast cancers, and 498 and 1197 matched controls, respectively. We measured absolute and percent mammographic density using the Cumulus software at the conventional threshold (Cumulus) and two increasingly higher thresholds (Altocumulus and Cirrocumulus, respectively). Measures were transformed and adjusted for age and body mass index (BMI). Using conditional logistic regression and adjusting for BMI by age at mammogram, we estimated risk discrimination by the odds ratio per adjusted standard deviation (OPERA), calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and compared nested models using the likelihood ratio criterion and models with the same number of parameters using the difference in Bayesian information criterion (DELTABIC). Result(s): For interval cancer, there was very strong evidence that the association was best predicted by Cumulus as a percentage (OPERA = 2.33 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.85-2.92); all DELTABIC > 14), and the association with BMI was independent of age at mammogram. After adjusting for percent Cumulus, no other measure was associated with risk (all P > 0.1). For screen-detected cancer, however, the associations were strongest for the absolute and percent Cirrocumulus measures (all DELTABIC > 6), and after adjusting for Cirrocumulus, no other measure was associated with risk (all P > 0.07). Conclusion(s): The amount of brighter areas is the best mammogram-based measure of screen-detected breast cancer risk, while the percentage of the breast covered by white or bright areas is the best mammogram-based measure of

Background Investigating the genetic and environmental causes of variation in genome-wide average DNA methylation (GWAM), a global methylation measure from the HumanMethylation450 array, might give a better understanding of genetic and environmental influences on methylation. Methods We measured GWAM for 2299 individuals aged 0 to 90 years from seven twin and/or family studies. We estimated familial correlations, modelled correlations with cohabitation history and fitted variance components models for GWAM. Results The correlation in GWAM for twin pairs was ∼0.8 at birth, decreased with age during adolescence and was constant at ∼0.4 throughout adulthood, with no evidence that twin pair correlations differed by zygosity. Non-twin first-degree relatives were correlated, from 0.17 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.05–0.30] to 0.28 (95% CI: 0.08–0.48), except for middle-aged siblings (0.01, 95% CI: −0.10–0.12), and the correlation increased with time living together and decreased with time living apart. Spouse pairs were correlated in all studies, from 0.23 (95% CI: 0.3–0.43) to 0.31 (95% CI: 0.05–0.52), and the correlation increased with time living together. The variance explained by environmental factors shared by twins alone was 90% (95% CI: 74–95%) at birth, decreased in early life and plateaued at 28% (95% CI: 17–39%) in middle age and beyond. There was a cohabitation-related environmental component of variance. Conclusions GWAM is determined in utero by prenatal environmental factors, the effects of which persist throughout life. The variation of GWAM is also influenced by environmental factors shared by family members, as well as by individual-specific environmental factors.

BACKGROUND: Investigating the genetic and environmental causes of variation in genome-wide average DNA methylation (GWAM), a global methylation measure from the HumanMethylation450 array, might give a better understanding of genetic and environmental influences on methylation. METHODS: We measured GWAM for 2299 individuals aged 0 to 90 years from seven twin and/or family studies. We estimated familial correlations, modelled correlations with cohabitation history and fitted variance components models for GWAM. RESULTS: The correlation in GWAM for twin pairs was ∼0.8 at birth, decreased with age during adolescence and was constant at ∼0.4 throughout adulthood, with no evidence that twin pair correlations differed by zygosity. Non-twin first-degree relatives were correlated, from 0.17 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.05-0.30] to 0.28 (95% CI: 0.08-0.48), except for middle-aged siblings (0.01, 95% CI: -0.10-0.12), and the correlation increased with time living together and decreased with time living apart. Spouse pairs were correlated in all studies, from 0.23 (95% CI: 0.3-0.43) to 0.31 (95% CI: 0.05-0.52), and the correlation increased with time living together. The variance explained by environmental factors shared by twins alone was 90% (95% CI: 74-95%) at birth, decreased in early life and plateaued at 28% (95% CI: 17-39%) in middle age and beyond. There was a cohabitation-related environmental component of variance. CONCLUSIONS: GWAM is determined in utero by prenatal environmental factors, the effects of which persist throughout life. The variation of GWAM is also influenced by environmental factors shared by family members, as well as by individual-specific environmental factors.

BACKGROUND: Mammographic density defined by the conventional pixel brightness threshold, and adjusted for age and body mass index (BMI), is a well-established risk factor for breast cancer. We asked if higher thresholds better separate women with and without breast cancer. METHODS: We studied Australian women, 354 with breast cancer over-sampled for early-onset and family history, and 944 unaffected controls frequency-matched for age at mammogram. We measured mammographic dense area and percent density using the CUMULUS software at the conventional threshold, which we call Cumulus , and at two increasingly higher thresholds, which we call Altocumulus and Cirrocumulus , respectively. All measures were Box-Cox transformed and adjusted for age and BMI. We estimated the odds per adjusted standard deviation (OPERA) using logistic regression and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). RESULTS: Altocumulus and Cirrocumulus were correlated with Cumulus (r ∼ 0.8 and 0.6 , respectively) . For dense area, the OPERA was 1.62, 1.74 and 1.73 for Cumulus, Altocumulus and Cirrocumulus , respectively (all P < 0.001). After adjusting for Altocumulus and Cirrocumulus , Cumulus was not significant ( P > 0.6). The OPERAs for percent density were less but gave similar findings. The mean of the standardized adjusted Altocumulus and Cirrocumulus dense area measures was the best predictor; OPERA = 1.87 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.64-2.14] and AUC = 0.68 (0.65-0.71). CONCLUSIONS: The areas of higher mammographically dense regions are associated with almost 30% stronger breast cancer risk gradient, explain the risk association of the conventional measure and might be more aetiologically important. This has substantial implications for clinical translation and molecular, genetic and epidemiological research.

We asked if twin birth influences the DNA methylation of subsequent siblings. We measured whole blood methylation using the HumanMethylation450 array for siblings from two twin and family studies in Australia and Korea. We compared the means and correlations in methylation between pairs of siblings born before a twin birth (BT siblings), born on either side of a twin birth (B/AT pairs) and born after a twin birth (AT siblings). For the genome-wide average DNA methylation, the correlation for AT pairs (rAT) was larger than the correlation for BT pairs (rBT) in both studies, and from the meta-analysis, rAT = 0.46 (95% CI: 0.26, 0.63) and rBT = -0.003 (95% CI: -0.30, 0.29) (P = 0.02). B/AT pairs were not correlated (from the meta-analysis rBAT = 0.08; 95% CI: -0.31, 0.45). Similar results were found for the average methylation of several genomic regions, e.g., CpG shelf and gene body. BT and AT pairs were differentially correlated in methylation for 15 probes (all P < 10-7), and the top 152 differentially correlated probes (at P < 10-4) were enriched in cell signalling and breast cancer regulation pathways. Our observations are consistent with a twin birth changing the intrauterine environment such that siblings both born after a twin birth are correlated in DNA methylation.

BACKGROUND: In spite of the increasing incidence of in situ breast cancer, the information about the risk factors of in situ breast cancer (DCIS) is scarce as compared to the information available for invasive ductal breast cancer (IDC), with inconsistent findings regarding the difference in risk factors between DCIS and IDC. METHODS: We enrolled 472 women with IDC and 90 women with DCIS and 1088 controls matching for age and menopausal status. Information on risk factors was collected through self-administered questionnaire. Percent mammographic dense area (PDA), absolute mammographic dense area (ADA), and nondense area were assessed using a computer-assisted thresholding technique. Odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated by conditional logistic regression model with adjustment for covariates. RESULTS: Later age at menarche and regular physical exercise were associated with decreased risk of IDC, whereas alcohol consumption, previous benign breast disease, and family history of breast cancer were associated with increased risk of IDC. For DCIS, previous benign breast disease and alcohol consumption were associated with the increased risk, and regular physical exercise was associated with decreased risk. Increase of ADA by 1-quartile level and PDA increase by 10% were associated with 1.10 (95% CI: 1.01, 1.21) and 1.10 (95% CI: 1.01, 1.19) times greater risk of IDC, respectively. The increase of ADA by 1-quartile level and PDA increase by 10% were associated with 1.17 (95% CI: 0.91, 1.50) times and 1.11 (95% CI:0.90,1.37) times greater risk of DCIS, respectively, but the associations were not statistically significant. There was no significant difference in the association with risk factors and mammographic density measures between IDC and DCIS (P > 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: Differential associations of DCIS with mammographic density and risk factors as compared with the associations of IDC were not evident. This finding suggests that IDC and DCIS d