1932

Abstract

Breast cancer risk is highly variable within the population and current research is leading the shift toward personalized medicine. By accurately assessing an individual woman's risk, we can reduce the risk of over/undertreatment by preventing unnecessary procedures or by elevating screening procedures. Breast density measured from conventional mammography has been established as one of the most dominant risk factors for breast cancer; however, it is currently limited by its ability to characterize more complex breast parenchymal patterns that have been shown to provide additional information to strengthen cancer risk models. Molecular factors ranging from high penetrance, or high likelihood that a mutation will show signs and symptoms of the disease, to combinations of gene mutations with low penetrance have shown promise for augmenting risk assessment. Although imaging biomarkers and molecular biomarkers have both individually demonstrated improved performance in risk assessment, few studies have evaluated them together. This review aims to highlight the current state of the art in breast cancer risk assessment using imaging and genetic biomarkers.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-biodatasci-020722-092748
2023-08-10
2024-06-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/biodatasci/6/1/annurev-biodatasci-020722-092748.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-biodatasci-020722-092748&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1.
    Giaquinto AN, Sung H, Miller KD, Kramer JL, Newman LA et al. 2022. Breast cancer statistics, 2022. CA Cancer J. Clin. 72:524–41
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2.
    Sun YS, Zhao Z, Yang ZN, Xu F, Lu HJ et al. 2017. Risk factors and preventions of breast cancer. Int. J. Biol. Sci. 13:1387–97
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 3.
    Ginsburg O, Yip CH, Brooks A, Cabanes A, Caleffi M et al. 2020. Breast cancer early detection: a phased approach to implementation. Cancer 126:Suppl. 102379–93
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 4.
    Monticciolo DL, Malak SF, Friedewald SM, Eby PR, Newell MS et al. 2021. Breast cancer screening recommendations inclusive of all women at average risk: update from the ACR and Society of Breast Imaging. J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 18:1280–88
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 5.
    Oeffinger KC, Fontham ET, Etzioni R, Herzig A, Michaelson JS et al. 2015. Breast cancer screening for women at average risk: 2015 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. JAMA 314:1599–614
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 6.
    Evans DG, Howell A. 2007. Breast cancer risk-assessment models. Breast Cancer Res. 9:213
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 7.
    Tyrer J, Duffy SW, Cuzick J. 2004. A breast cancer prediction model incorporating familial and personal risk factors. Stat. Med. 23:1111–30
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 8.
    Gail MH, Brinton LA, Byar DP, Corle DK, Green SB et al. 1989. Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 81:1879–86
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 9.
    Berry DA, Parmigiani G, Sanchez J, Schildkraut J, Winer E. 1997. Probability of carrying a mutation of breast-ovarian cancer gene BRCA1 based on family history. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 89:227–38
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 10.
    Claus EB, Risch N, Thompson WD. 1991. Genetic analysis of breast cancer in the cancer and steroid hormone study. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 48:232–42
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 11.
    Tice JA, Cummings SR, Smith-Bindman R, Ichikawa L, Barlow WE, Kerlikowske K. 2008. Using clinical factors and mammographic breast density to estimate breast cancer risk: development and validation of a new predictive model. Ann. Intern. Med. 148:337–47
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 12.
    Barke LD, Freivogel ME. 2017. Breast cancer risk assessment models and high-risk screening. Radiol. Clin. North Am. 55:457–74
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 13.
    Kim G, Bahl M. 2021. Assessing risk of breast cancer: a review of risk prediction models. J. Breast Imaging 3:144–55
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 14.
    Terry MB, Liao Y, Whittemore AS, Leoce N, Buchsbaum R et al. 2019. 10-year performance of four models of breast cancer risk: a validation study. Lancet Oncol. 20:504–17
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 15.
    McCarthy AM, Liu Y, Ehsan S, Guan Z, Liang J et al. 2021. Validation of breast cancer risk models by race/ethnicity, family history and molecular subtypes. Cancers 14:45
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 16.
    Brentnall AR, Cuzick J. 2020. Risk models for breast cancer and their validation. Stat. Sci. 35:14–30
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 17.
    Brentnall AR, Harkness EF, Astley SM, Donnelly LS, Stavrinos P et al. 2015. Mammographic density adds accuracy to both the Tyrer-Cuzick and Gail breast cancer risk models in a prospective UK screening cohort. Breast Cancer Res. 17:147
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 18.
    Vachon CM, Pankratz VS, Scott CG, Haeberle L, Ziv E et al. 2015. The contributions of breast density and common genetic variation to breast cancer risk. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 107:dju397
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 19.
    van Veen EM, Brentnall AR, Byers H, Harkness EF, Astley SM et al. 2018. Use of single-nucleotide polymorphisms and mammographic density plus classic risk factors for breast cancer risk prediction. JAMA Oncol. 4:476–82
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 20.
    Vilmun BM, Vejborg I, Lynge E, Lillholm M, Nielsen M et al. 2020. Impact of adding breast density to breast cancer risk models: a systematic review. Eur. J. Radiol. 127:109019
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 21.
    Boyd N, Berman H, Zhu J, Martin LJ, Yaffe MJ et al. 2018. The origins of breast cancer associated with mammographic density: a testable biological hypothesis. Breast Cancer Res. 20:17
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 22.
    Boyd NF, Martin LJ, Sun L, Guo H, Chiarelli A et al. 2006. Body size, mammographic density, and breast cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 15:2086–92
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 23.
    Tice JA, Bissell MCS, Miglioretti DL, Gard CC, Rauscher GH et al. 2019. Validation of the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium model of breast cancer risk. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 175:519–23
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 24.
    Conant EF, Sprague BL, Kontos D. 2018. Beyond BI-RADS density: a call for quantification in the breast imaging clinic. Radiology 286:401–4
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 25.
    D'Orsi CJ, Sickles EA, Mendelson EB, Morris EA 2013. ACR BI-RADS® Atlas: Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Reston, VA: Am. Coll. Radiol.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 26.
    Astley SM, Harkness EF, Sergeant JC, Warwick J, Stavrinos P et al. 2018. A comparison of five methods of measuring mammographic density: a case-control study. Breast Cancer Res. 20:10
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 27.
    Malkov S, Shepherd JA, Scott CG, Tamimi RM, Ma L et al. 2016. Mammographic texture and risk of breast cancer by tumor type and estrogen receptor status. Breast Cancer Res. 18:122
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 28.
    Mendel KR, Li H, Lan L, Cahill CM, Rael V et al. 2018. Quantitative texture analysis: robustness of radiomics across two digital mammography manufacturers' systems. J. Med. 5:011002
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 29.
    Wanders JOP, van Gils CH, Karssemeijer N, Holland K, Kallenberg M et al. 2018. The combined effect of mammographic texture and density on breast cancer risk: a cohort study. Breast Cancer Res. 20:36
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 30.
    Zheng Y, Keller BM, Ray S, Wang Y, Conant EF et al. 2015. Parenchymal texture analysis in digital mammography: a fully automated pipeline for breast cancer risk assessment. Med. Phys. 42:4149–60
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 31.
    Gennaro G, Bernardi D, Houssami N. 2018. Radiation dose with digital breast tomosynthesis compared to digital mammography: per-view analysis. Eur. Radiol. 28:573–81
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 32.
    Gao Y, Moy L, Heller SL. 2021. Digital breast tomosynthesis: update on technology, evidence, and clinical practice. Radiographics 41:321–37
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 33.
    Gastounioti A, Conant EF, Kontos D. 2016. Beyond breast density: a review on the advancing role of parenchymal texture analysis in breast cancer risk assessment. Breast Cancer Res. 18:91
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 34.
    Richman IB, Hoag JR, Xu X, Forman HP, Hooley R et al. 2019. Adoption of digital breast tomosynthesis in clinical practice. JAMA Intern. Med. 179:1292–95
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 35.
    Kerlikowske K, Su YR, Sprague BL, Tosteson ANA, Buist DSM et al. 2022. Association of screening with digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography with risk of interval invasive and advanced breast cancer. JAMA 327:2220–30
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 36.
    Mann RM, Cho N, Moy L. 2019. Breast MRI: state of the art. Radiology 292:520–36
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 37.
    Heacock L, Lewin AA, Toth HK, Moy L, Reig B. 2021. Abbreviated MR imaging for breast cancer. Radiol. Clin. North Am. 59:99–111
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 38.
    Liao GJ, Henze Bancroft LC, Strigel RM, Chitalia RD, Kontos D et al. 2020. Background parenchymal enhancement on breast MRI: a comprehensive review. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 51:43–61
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 39.
    Monticciolo DL, Newell MS, Moy L, Niell B, Monsees B, Sickles EA. 2018. Breast cancer screening in women at higher-than-average risk: recommendations from the ACR. J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 15:408–14
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 40.
    Comstock CE, Gatsonis C, Newstead GM, Snyder BS, Gareen IF et al. 2020. Comparison of abbreviated breast MRI versus digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer detection among women with dense breasts undergoing screening. JAMA 323:746–56
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 41.
    Hooley RJ, Durand MA, Philpotts LE. 2017. Advances in digital breast tomosynthesis. Am. J. Roentgenol. 208:256–66
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 42.
    Kontos D, Winham SJ, Oustimov A, Pantalone L, Hsieh MK et al. 2019. Radiomic phenotypes of mammographic parenchymal complexity: toward augmenting breast density in breast cancer risk assessment. Radiology 290:41–49
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 43.
    Lee SH, Park H, Ko ES. 2020. Radiomics in breast imaging from techniques to clinical applications: a review. Korean J. Radiol. 21:779–92
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 44.
    Conti A, Duggento A, Indovina I, Guerrisi M, Toschi N. 2021. Radiomics in breast cancer classification and prediction. Semin. Cancer Biol. 72:238–50
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 45.
    Biswas M, Kuppili V, Saba L, Edla DR, Suri HS et al. 2019. State-of-the-art review on deep learning in medical imaging. Front. Biosci. 24:392–426
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 46.
    He T, Puppala M, Ezeana CF, Huang YS, Chou PH et al. 2019. A deep learning-based decision support tool for precision risk assessment of breast cancer. JCO Clin. Cancer Inform. 3:1–12
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 47.
    Le EPV, Wang Y, Huang Y, Hickman S, Gilbert FJ. 2019. Artificial intelligence in breast imaging. Clin. Radiol. 74:357–66
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 48.
    Lei YM, Yin M, Yu MH, Yu J, Zeng SE et al. 2021. Artificial intelligence in medical imaging of the breast. Front. Oncol. 11:600557
    [Google Scholar]
  49. 49.
    Li H, Giger ML, Huynh BQ, Antropova NO. 2017. Deep learning in breast cancer risk assessment: evaluation of convolutional neural networks on a clinical dataset of full-field digital mammograms. J. Med. 4:041304
    [Google Scholar]
  50. 50.
    Mazurowski MA, Buda M, Saha A, Bashir MR. 2019. Deep learning in radiology: an overview of the concepts and a survey of the state of the art with focus on MRI. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 49:939–54
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 51.
    Ou WC, Polat D, Dogan BE. 2021. Deep learning in breast radiology: current progress and future directions. Eur. Radiol. 31:4872–85
    [Google Scholar]
  52. 52.
    Sechopoulos I, Teuwen J, Mann R. 2021. Artificial intelligence for breast cancer detection in mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis: state of the art. Semin. Cancer Biol. 72:214–25
    [Google Scholar]
  53. 53.
    Yoon JH, Kim EK. 2021. Deep learning-based artificial intelligence for mammography. Korean J. Radiol. 22:1225–39
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 54.
    Yala A, Mikhael PG, Strand F, Lin G, Smith K et al. 2021. Toward robust mammography-based models for breast cancer risk. Sci. Transl. Med. 13:eaba437
    [Google Scholar]
  55. 55.
    Yala A, Lehman C, Schuster T, Portnoi T, Barzilay R. 2019. A deep learning mammography-based model for improved breast cancer risk prediction. Radiology 292:60–66
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 56.
    Eriksson M, Destounis S, Czene K, Zeiberg A, Day R et al. 2022. A risk model for digital breast tomosynthesis to predict breast cancer and guide clinical care. Sci. Transl. Med. 14:eabn3971
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 57.
    Yanes T, Young MA, Meiser B, James PA. 2020. Clinical applications of polygenic breast cancer risk: a critical review and perspectives of an emerging field. Breast Cancer Res. 22:21
    [Google Scholar]
  58. 58.
    Mavaddat N, Michailidou K, Dennis J, Lush M, Fachal L et al. 2019. Polygenic risk scores for prediction of breast cancer and breast cancer subtypes. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 104:21–34
    [Google Scholar]
  59. 59.
    Fung SM, Wong XY, Lee SX, Miao H, Hartman M, Wee HL. 2019. Performance of single-nucleotide polymorphisms in breast cancer risk prediction models: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 28:506–21
    [Google Scholar]
  60. 60.
    Wang Y, Tsuo K, Kanai M, Neale BM, Martin AR. 2022. Challenges and opportunities for developing more generalizable polygenic risk scores. Annu. Rev. Biomed. Data Sci. 5:293–320
    [Google Scholar]
  61. 61.
    van den Broek JJ, Schechter CB, van Ravesteyn NT, Janssens A, Wolfson MC et al. 2021. Personalizing breast cancer screening based on polygenic risk and family history. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 113:434–42
    [Google Scholar]
  62. 62.
    Gastounioti A, Hsieh MK, Cohen E, Pantalone L, Conant EF, Kontos D. 2018. Incorporating breast anatomy in computational phenotyping of mammographic parenchymal patterns for breast cancer risk estimation. Sci. Rep. 8:17489
    [Google Scholar]
  63. 63.
    Li Y, Fan M, Cheng H, Zhang P, Zheng B, Li L. 2018. Assessment of global and local region-based bilateral mammographic feature asymmetry to predict short-term breast cancer risk. Phys. Med. Biol. 63:025004
    [Google Scholar]
  64. 64.
    Tan M, Mariapun S, Yip CH, Ng KH, Teo SH. 2019. A novel method of determining breast cancer risk using parenchymal textural analysis of mammography images on an Asian cohort. Phys. Med. Biol. 64:035016
    [Google Scholar]
  65. 65.
    Pertuz S, Sassi A, Karivaara-Mäkelä M, Holli-Helenius K, Lääperi A-L et al. 2019. Micro-parenchymal patterns for breast cancer risk assessment. Biomed. Phys. Eng. Express 5:065008
    [Google Scholar]
  66. 66.
    Padilla A, Arponen O, Rinta-Kiikka I, Pertuz S. 2022. Image retrieval-based parenchymal analysis for breast cancer risk assessment. Med. Phys. 49:1055–64
    [Google Scholar]
  67. 67.
    Gastounioti A, Pantalone L, Scott CG, Cohen EA, Wu FF et al. 2021. Fully automated volumetric breast density estimation from digital breast tomosynthesis. Radiology 301:561–68
    [Google Scholar]
  68. 68.
    Lam DL, Hippe DS, Kitsch AE, Partridge SC, Rahbar H. 2019. Assessment of quantitative magnetic resonance imaging background parenchymal enhancement parameters to improve determination of individual breast cancer risk. J. Comput. Assist. Tomogr. 43:85–92
    [Google Scholar]
  69. 69.
    Hu X, Jiang L, You C, Gu Y. 2021. Fibroglandular tissue and background parenchymal enhancement on breast MR imaging correlates with breast cancer. Front. Oncol. 11:616716
    [Google Scholar]
  70. 70.
    Niell BL, Abdalah M, Stringfield O, Raghunand N, Ataya D et al. 2021. Quantitative measures of background parenchymal enhancement predict breast cancer risk. Am. J. Roentgenol. 217:64–75
    [Google Scholar]
  71. 71.
    Behravan H, Hartikainen JM, Tengstrom M, Kosma VM, Mannermaa A. 2020. Predicting breast cancer risk using interacting genetic and demographic factors and machine learning. Sci. Rep. 10:11044
    [Google Scholar]
  72. 72.
    Gallagher S, Hughes E, Wagner S, Tshiaba P, Rosenthal E et al. 2020. Association of a polygenic risk score with breast cancer among women carriers of high- and moderate-risk breast cancer genes. JAMA Netw Open 3:e208501
    [Google Scholar]
  73. 73.
    Olsen M, Fischer K, Bossuyt PM, Goetghebeur E. 2021. Evaluating the prognostic performance of a polygenic risk score for breast cancer risk stratification. BMC Cancer 21:1351
    [Google Scholar]
  74. 74.
    Gao C, Polley EC, Hart SN, Huang H, Hu C et al. 2021. Risk of breast cancer among carriers of pathogenic variants in breast cancer predisposition genes varies by polygenic risk score. J. Clin. Oncol. 39:2564–73
    [Google Scholar]
  75. 75.
    Evans DG, van Veen EM, Byers H, Roberts E, Howell A et al. 2022. The importance of ethnicity: Are breast cancer polygenic risk scores ready for women who are not of White European origin?. Int. J. Cancer 150:73–79
    [Google Scholar]
  76. 76.
    Shieh Y, Fejerman L, Lott PC, Marker K, Sawyer SD et al. 2020. A polygenic risk score for breast cancer in US Latinas and Latin American women. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 112:590–98
    [Google Scholar]
  77. 77.
    Allman R, Spaeth E, Lai J, Gross SJ, Hopper JL. 2021. A streamlined model for use in clinical breast cancer risk assessment maintains predictive power and is further improved with inclusion of a polygenic risk score. PLOS ONE 16:e0245375
    [Google Scholar]
  78. 78.
    Gao G, Zhao F, Ahearn TU, Lunetta KL, Troester MA et al. 2022. Polygenic risk scores for prediction of breast cancer risk in women of African ancestry: a cross-ancestry approach. Hum. Mol. Genet. 31:3133–43
    [Google Scholar]
  79. 79.
    Ho WK, Tai MC, Dennis J, Shu X, Li J et al. 2022. Polygenic risk scores for prediction of breast cancer risk in Asian populations. Genet. Med. 24:586–600
    [Google Scholar]
  80. 80.
    Zhang X, Rice M, Tworoger SS, Rosner BA, Eliassen AH et al. 2018. Addition of a polygenic risk score, mammographic density, and endogenous hormones to existing breast cancer risk prediction models: a nested case-control study. PLOS Med. 15:e1002644
    [Google Scholar]
  81. 81.
    Evans DGR, Harkness EF, Brentnall AR, van Veen EM, Astley SM et al. 2019. Breast cancer pathology and stage are better predicted by risk stratification models that include mammographic density and common genetic variants. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 176:141–48
    [Google Scholar]
  82. 82.
    Vachon CM, Scott CG, Tamimi RM, Thompson DJ, Fasching PA et al. 2019. Joint association of mammographic density adjusted for age and body mass index and polygenic risk score with breast cancer risk. Breast Cancer Res. 21:68
    [Google Scholar]
  83. 83.
    Brentnall AR, van Veen EM, Harkness EF, Rafiq S, Byers H et al. 2020. A case-control evaluation of 143 single nucleotide polymorphisms for breast cancer risk stratification with classical factors and mammographic density. Int. J. Cancer 146:2122–29
    [Google Scholar]
  84. 84.
    Eriksson M, Czene K, Strand F, Zackrisson S, Lindholm P et al. 2020. Identification of women at high risk of breast cancer who need supplemental screening. Radiology 297:327–33
    [Google Scholar]
  85. 85.
    Trivino JC, Ceba A, Rubio-Solsona E, Serra D, Sanchez-Guiu I et al. 2020. Combination of phenotype and polygenic risk score in breast cancer risk evaluation in the Spanish population: a case -control study. BMC Cancer 20:1079
    [Google Scholar]
  86. 86.
    Rosner B, Tamimi RM, Kraft P, Gao C, Mu Y et al. 2021. Simplified breast risk tool integrating questionnaire risk factors, mammographic density, and polygenic risk score: development and validation. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 30:600–7
    [Google Scholar]
  87. 87.
    Nisbett WH, Kavuri A, Das M. 2020. On the correlation between second order texture features and human observer detection performance in digital images. Sci. Rep. 10:13510
    [Google Scholar]
  88. 88.
    Robinson K, Li H, Lan L, Schacht D, Giger M. 2019. Radiomics robustness assessment and classification evaluation: a two-stage method demonstrated on multivendor FFDM. Med. Phys. 46:2145–56
    [Google Scholar]
  89. 89.
    Horng H, Singh A, Yousefi B, Cohen EA, Haghighi B et al. 2022. Generalized ComBat harmonization methods for radiomic features with multi-modal distributions and multiple batch effects. Sci. Rep. 12:4493
    [Google Scholar]
  90. 90.
    Gastounioti A, Desai S, Ahluwalia VS, Conant EF, Kontos D. 2022. Artificial intelligence in mammographic phenotyping of breast cancer risk: a narrative review. Breast Cancer Res. 24:14
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-biodatasci-020722-092748
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-biodatasci-020722-092748
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplementary Data

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error