Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39764121›Full record

ArticleResearch square2024

Investigating the added value of incorporatingmammographic density to an integrated breastcancer risk model with questionnaire-based riskfactors and polygenic risk score.

Charlotta V Mulder, Xin Yang, Yon Ho Jee, Christopher G Scott, Chi Gao, Yu Cao, Amber N Hurson, Mikael Eriksson, Celine M Vachon, Per Hall and 5 more

Abstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

Article in Research square, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Charlotta V MulderNational Cancer Institute.
Xin YangUniversity of Cambridge.
Yon Ho JeeHarvard TH Chan School of Public Health.
Christopher G ScottMayo Clinic.
Chi GaoHarvard TH Chan School of Public Health.
Yu CaoAmerican Cancer Society.
Amber N HursonNational Cancer Institute.
Mikael ErikssonKarolinska Institutet.
Celine M VachonMayo Clinic.
Per HallKarolinska Institutet.
Antonis C AntoniouUniversity of Cambridge.
Peter KraftNational Cancer Institute.
Gretchen L GierachNational Cancer Institute.
Montserrat Garcia-ClosasInstitute of Cancer Research.
Parichoy Pal ChoudhuryNational Cancer Institute.

Funding

Statistical MethodsP01CA087969 · NCI · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI ROSNER, BERNARD A · 2000 to 2019
$77.8M
The Role of CHFR in Tumorigenesis and Paclitaxel-Sensitivity in Breast CancerP50CA116201 · NCI · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI Fergus Joseph Couch · 2005 to 2026
$49.9M
Risk Factors for Breast Cancer in Younger NursesR01CA050385 · NCI · HARVARD UNIVERSITY (SCH OF PUBLIC HLTH) · PI ELIASSEN, A. HEATHER, WILLETT, WALTER C. · 1989 to 2019
$32.3M
Life Course Cancer Epidemiology Cohort in WomenU01CA176726 · NCI · HARVARD UNIVERSITY D/B/A HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI ELIASSEN, A. HEATHER, WILLETT, WALTER C. · 2018 to 2025
$22.4M
Long Term Multidisciplinary Study of Cancer in Women: The Nurses Health StudyUM1CA186107 · NCI · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI ELIASSEN, A. HEATHER, STAMPFER, MEIR · 2014 to 2023
$22.3M
Premonopausal Hormone Levels and Risk of Breast CancerR01CA067262 · NCI · HARVARD UNIVERSITY (SCH OF PUBLIC HLTH) · PI HANKINSON, SUSAN E · 2002 to 2011
$11.9M
BIOCHEMICAL MARKERS IN THE NURSES'HEALTH STUDY COHORTR01CA049449 · NCI · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI HANKINSON, SUSAN E · 1989 to 2008
$11.3M
Epidemiologic StudiesU19CA148065 · NCI · HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI AHSAN, HABIBUL, BRUGGE, JOAN SIEFERT · 2010 to 2014
$10.6M
A Mayo Cohort Study of Mammographic Breast DensityR01CA097396 · NCI · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI VACHON, CELINE M · 2003 to 2007
$3.1M
Automated Density Measures for Estimating Breast Cancer Risk and Therapy ResponseR01CA177150 · NCI · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI KERLIKOWSKE, KARLA M, VACHON, CELINE M · 2013 to 2017
$3.0M
Identifying Genes for Mammographic Breast DensityR01CA128931 · NCI · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI VACHON, CELINE M · 2008 to 2012
$2.7M
Risk factors for breast cancer molecular subtypesR01CA140286 · NCI · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI KERLIKOWSKE, KARLA M, VACHON, CELINE M · 2010 to 2014
$2.6M
NCI NIH HHS P01 CA087969NCI NIH HHS P50 CA116201NCI NIH HHS R01 CA049449NCI NIH HHS R01 CA050385NCI NIH HHS R01 CA067262NCI NIH HHS R01 CA097396NCI NIH HHS R01 CA128931NCI NIH HHS R01 CA140286NCI NIH HHS R01 CA166666NCI NIH HHS R01 CA177150NCI NIH HHS R01 CA260352NCI NIH HHS U01 CA176726NCI NIH HHS U19 CA148065NCI NIH HHS UM1 CA186107
6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

Breast CancerMammographic breast densityRisk prediction model validation

Identifiers

PMID39764121
PMCPMC11702789

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.