ArticleNPJ breast cancer2025
Evaluating mammographic density's contribution to improve a breast cancer risk model with questionnaire-based and polygenic factors.
Article in NPJ breast cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Incorporation of mammographic density into breast cancer risk models may improve risk stratification for tailored screening and prevention. We evaluated the added value of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) breast density to a validated model combining questionnaire-based risk factors and a 313-variant polygenic risk score (PRS), using the Individualized Coherent Absolute Risk Estimator (iCARE) tool for risk model building and validation. Calibration and discrimination were assessed in three prospective cohorts of European-ancestry women (1468 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 stratified by age (<50, ≥50 years). Adding density modestly improved discrimination: among younger women, AUC increased from 65.6% (95% CI: 61.9-69.3%) to 67.0% (95% CI: 63.5-70.6%); among older women, from 65.5% (95% CI: 63.8-67.2%) to 66.1% (95% CI 64.4-67.8%). Among US women aged 50-70 years, 18.4% were identified at ≥3% 5-year risk with density included, capturing 42.4% of future cases; 7.9% were reclassified, identifying 2.8% more future cases. In Sweden, 10.3% were identified at elevated risk, capturing 29.4% of cases, with 5.3% reclassified and 4.4% more cases identified. Integrating density with established risk factors and PRS may enhance breast cancer risk stratification among European-ancestry women, supporting its potential for clinical utility.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.