Kathleen R. Brandt

Trends in Mastectomy Rates at the Mayo Clinic Rochester: Effect of Surgical Year and Preoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging

PURPOSE Recent changes have occurred in the presurgical planning for breast cancer, including the introduction of preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). We sought to analyze the trends in mastectomy rates and the relationship to preoperative MRI and surgical year at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. PATIENTS AND METHODS We identified 5,405 patients who underwent surgery between 1997 and 2006. Patients undergoing MRI were identified from a prospective database. Trends in mastectomy rate and the association of MRI with surgery type were analyzed. Multiple logistic regression was used to assess the effect of surgery year and MRI on surgery type, while adjusting for potential confounding variables. RESULTS Mastectomy rates differed significantly across time (P < .0001), and decreased from 45% in 1997% to 31% in 2003, followed by increasing rates for 2004 to 2006. The use of MRI increased from 10% in 2003% to 23% in 2006 (P < .0001). Patients with MRI were more likely to undergo mastectomy than those without MRI (54% v 36%; P < .0001). However, mastectomy rates increased from 2004 to 2006 predominantly among patients without MRI (29% in 2003% to 41% in 2006; P < .0001). In a multivariable model, both MRI (odds ratio [OR], 1.7; P < .0001) and surgical year (compared to 2003 OR: 1.4 for 2004, 1.8 for 2005, and 1.7 for 2006; P < .0001) were independent predictors of mastectomy. CONCLUSION After a steady decline, mastectomy rates have increased in recent years with both surgery year and MRI as significant predictors for type of surgery. Further studies are needed to evaluate the role of MRI and other factors influencing surgical planning.

Mammographic density, breast cancer risk and risk prediction

In this review, we examine the evidence for mammographic density as an independent risk factor for breast cancer, describe the risk prediction models that have incorporated density, and discuss the current and future implications of using mammographic density in clinical practice. Mammographic density is a consistent and strong risk factor for breast cancer in several populations and across age at mammogram. Recently, this risk factor has been added to existing breast cancer risk prediction models, increasing the discriminatory accuracy with its inclusion, albeit slightly. With validation, these models may replace the existing Gail model for clinical risk assessment. However, absolute risk estimates resulting from these improved models are still limited in their ability to characterize an individuals probability of developing cancer. Promising new measures of mammographic density, including volumetric density, which can be standardized using full-field digital mammography, will likely result in a stronger risk factor and improve accuracy of risk prediction models.

Mammographic Breast Density as a General Marker of Breast Cancer Risk

Mammographic breast density is a strong risk factor for breast cancer but whether breast density is a general marker of susceptibility or is specific to the location of the eventual cancer is unknown. A study of 372 incident breast cancer cases and 713 matched controls was conducted within the Mayo Clinic mammography screening practice. Mammograms on average 7 years before breast cancer were digitized, and quantitative measures of percentage density and dense area from each side and view were estimated. A regional density estimate accounting for overall percentage density was calculated from both mammogram views. Location of breast cancer and potential confounders were abstracted from medical records. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate associations, and C-statistics were used to evaluate the strength of risk prediction. There were increasing trends in breast cancer risk with increasing quartiles of percentage density and dense area, irrespective of the side of the breast with cancer (Ptrends < 0.001). Percentage density from the ipsilateral side [craniocaudal (CC): odds ratios (ORs), 1.0 (ref), 1.7, 3.1, and 3.1; mediolateral oblique (MLO): ORs, 1.0 (ref), 1.5, 2.2, and 2.8] and the contralateral side [CC: ORs, 1.0 (ref), 1.8, 2.2, and 3.7; MLO: ORs, 1.0 (ref), 1.6, 1.9, and 2.5] similarly predicted case-control status (C-statistics, 0.64-65). Accounting for overall percentage density, density in the region where the cancer subsequently developed was not a significant risk factor [CC: 1.0 (ref), 1.3, 1.0, and 1.2; MLO: 1.0 (ref), 1.1, 1.0, and 1.1 for increasing quartiles]. Results did not change when examining mammograms 3 years on average before the cancer. Overall mammographic density seems to represent a general marker of breast cancer risk that is not specific to breast side or location of the eventual cancer. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2007;16(1):43–9)

Longitudinal Trends in Mammographic Percent Density and Breast Cancer Risk

Background: Mammographic density is a strong risk factor for breast cancer. However, whether changes in mammographic density are associated with risk remains unclear. Materials and Methods: A study of 372 incident breast cancer cases and 713 matched controls was conducted within the Mayo Clinic mammography screening practice. Controls were matched on age, exam date, residence, menopause, interval between, and number of mammograms. All serial craniocaudal mammograms 10 years before ascertainment were digitized, and quantitative measures of percent density (PD) were estimated using a thresholding method. Data on potential confounders were abstracted from medical records. Logistic regression models with generalized estimating equations were used to evaluate the interactions among PD at earliest mammogram, time from earliest to each serial mammogram, and absolute change in PD between the earliest and subsequent mammograms. Analyses were done separately for PD measures from the ipsilateral and contralateral breast and also by use of hormone therapy (HT). Results: Subjects had an average of five mammograms available, were primarily postmenopausal (83%), and averaged 61 years at the earliest mammogram. Mean PD at earliest mammogram was higher for cases (31%) than controls (27%; ipsilateral side). There was no evidence of an association between change in PD and breast cancer risk by time. Compared with no change, an overall reduction of 10% PD (lowest quartile of change) was associated with an odds ratio of 0.9997 and an increase of 6.5% PD (highest quartile of change) with an odds ratio of 1.002. The same results held within the group of 220 cases and 340 controls never using HT. Among the 124 cases and 337 controls known to use HT during the interval, there was a statistically significant interaction between change in PD and time since the earliest mammogram (P = 0.01). However, in all groups, the risk associated with the earliest PD remained a stronger predictor of risk than change in PD. Conclusion: We observed no association between change in PD with breast cancer risk among all women and those never using HT. However, the interaction between change in PD and time should be evaluated in other populations. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2007;16(5):921–8)

The Many Faces of Fat Necrosis in the Breast

OBJECTIVE This article describes the manifestations of fat necrosis on mammography, sonography, and MRI and correlates the imaging findings with the pathologic findings. CONCLUSION On imaging studies, the appearance of fat necrosis ranges from typically benign to worrisome for malignancy. Mammography is more specific than sonography, and emphasis should be placed on mammography in making the diagnosis of fat necrosis. In selected cases, MRI may be helpful in showing findings consistent with fat necrosis.

Can Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Replace Conventional Diagnostic Mammography Views for Screening Recalls Without Calcifications? A Comparison Study in a Simulated Clinical Setting

OBJECTIVE This study evaluated digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) as an alternative to conventional diagnostic mammography in the workup of noncalcified findings recalled from screening mammography in a simulated clinical setting that incorporated comparison mammograms and breast ultrasound results. SUBJECTS AND METHODS One hundred forty-six women, with 158 abnormalities, underwent diagnostic mammography and two-view DBT. Three radiologists viewed the abnormal screening mammograms, comparison mammograms, and DBT images and recorded a DBT BI-RADS category and confidence score for each finding. Readers did not view the diagnostic mammograms. A final DBT BI-RADS category, incorporating ultrasound results in some cases, was determined and compared with the diagnostic mammography BI-RADS category using kappa statistics. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for DBT and diagnostic mammography. RESULTS Agreement between DBT and diagnostic mammography BI-RADS categories was excellent for readers 1 and 2 (κ = 0.91 and κ = 0.84) and good for reader 3 (κ = 0.68). For readers 1, 2, and 3, sensitivity and specificity of DBT for breast abnormalities were 100%, 100%, and 88% and 94%, 93%, and 89%, respectively. The clinical workup averaged three diagnostic views per abnormality and ultrasound was requested in 49% of the cases. DBT was adequate mammographic evaluation for 93-99% of the findings and ultrasound was requested in 33-55% of the cases. CONCLUSION The results of this study suggest that DBT can replace conventional diagnostic mammography views for the evaluation of noncalcified findings recalled from screening mammography and achieve similar sensitivity and specificity. Two-view DBT was considered adequate mammographic evaluation for more than 90% of the findings. There was minimal change in the use of ultrasound with DBT compared with diagnostic mammography.

Association Between Mammographic Density and Age-Related Lobular Involution of the Breast

PURPOSE Mammographic density and lobular involution are both significant risk factors for breast cancer, but whether these reflect the same biology is unknown. We examined the involution and density association in a large benign breast disease (BBD) cohort. PATIENTS AND METHODS Women in the Mayo Clinic BBD cohort who had a mammogram within 6 months of BBD diagnosis were eligible. The proportion of normal lobules that were involuted was categorized by an expert pathologist as no (0%), partial (1% to 74%), or complete involution (>or= 75%). Mammographic density was estimated as the four-category parenchymal pattern. Statistical analyses adjusted for potential confounders and evaluated modification by parity and age. We corroborated findings in a sample of women with BBD from the Mayo Mammography Health Study (MMHS) with quantitative percent density (PD) and absolute dense and nondense area estimates. RESULTS Women in the Mayo BBD cohort (n = 2,667) with no (odds ratio, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.2 to 2.3) or partial (odds ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0 to 1.6) involution had greater odds of high density (DY pattern) than those with complete involution (P trend < .01). There was no evidence for effect modification by age or parity. Among 317 women with BBD in the MMHS study, there was an inverse association between involution and PD (mean PD, 22.4%, 21.6%, 17.2%, for no, partial, and complete, respectively; P trend = .04) and a strong positive association of involution with nondense area (P trend < .01). No association was seen between involution and dense area (P trend = .56). CONCLUSION We present evidence of an inverse association between involution and mammographic density.

The Contributions of Breast Density and Common Genetic Variation to Breast Cancer Risk

We evaluated whether a 76-locus polygenic risk score (PRS) and Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) breast density were independent risk factors within three studies (1643 case patients, 2397 control patients) using logistic regression models. We incorporated the PRS odds ratio (OR) into the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) risk-prediction model while accounting for its attributable risk and compared five-year absolute risk predictions between models using area under the curve (AUC) statistics. All statistical tests were two-sided. BI-RADS density and PRS were independent risk factors across all three studies (P interaction = .23). Relative to those with scattered fibroglandular densities and average PRS (2(nd) quartile), women with extreme density and highest quartile PRS had 2.7-fold (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.74 to 4.12) increased risk, while those with low density and PRS had reduced risk (OR = 0.30, 95% CI = 0.18 to 0.51). PRS added independent information (P < .001) to the BCSC model and improved discriminatory accuracy from AUC = 0.66 to AUC = 0.69. Although the BCSC-PRS model was well calibrated in case-control data, independent cohort data are needed to test calibration in the general population.

An Automated Approach for Estimation of Breast Density

Breast density is a strong risk factor for breast cancer; however, no standard assessment method exists. An automated breast density method was modified and compared with a semi-automated, user-assisted thresholding method (Cumulus method) and the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System four-category tissue composition measure for their ability to predict future breast cancer risk. The three estimation methods were evaluated in a matched breast cancer case-control (n = 372 and n = 713, respectively) study at the Mayo Clinic using digitized film mammograms. Mammograms from the craniocaudal view of the noncancerous breast were acquired on average 7 years before diagnosis. Two controls with no previous history of breast cancer from the screening practice were matched to each case on age, number of previous screening mammograms, final screening exam date, menopausal status at this date, interval between earliest and latest available mammograms, and residence. Both Pearson linear correlation (R) and Spearman rank correlation (r) coefficients were used for comparing the three methods as appropriate. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate the risk for breast cancer (odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals) associated with the quartiles of percent breast density (automated breast density method, Cumulus method) or Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System categories. The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve was estimated and used to compare the discriminatory capabilities of each approach. The continuous measures (automated breast density method and Cumulus method) were highly correlated with each other (R = 0.70) but less with Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (r = 0.49 for automated breast density method and r = 0.57 for Cumulus method). Risk estimates associated with the lowest to highest quartiles of automated breast density method were greater in magnitude [odds ratios: 1.0 (reference), 2.3, 3.0, 5.2; P trend < 0.001] than the corresponding quartiles for the Cumulus method [odds ratios: 1.0 (reference), 1.7, 2.1, and 3.8; P trend < 0.001] and Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System [odds ratios: 1.0 (reference), 1.6, 1.5, 2.6; P trend < 0.001] method. However, all methods similarly discriminated between case and control status; areas under the receiver operator characteristic curve were 0.64, 0.63, and 0.61 for automated breast density method, Cumulus method, and Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, respectively. The automated breast density method is a viable option for quantitatively assessing breast density from digitized film mammograms. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008;17(11):3090–7)

A Novel Automated Mammographic Density Measure and Breast Cancer Risk

BACKGROUND Mammographic breast density is a strong breast cancer risk factor but is not used in the clinical setting, partly because of a lack of standardization and automation. We developed an automated and objective measurement of the grayscale value variation within a mammogram, evaluated its association with breast cancer, and compared its performance with that of percent density (PD). METHODS Three clinic-based studies were included: a case-cohort study of 217 breast cancer case subjects and 2094 non-case subjects and two case-control studies comprising 928 case subjects and 1039 control subjects and 246 case subjects and 516 control subjects, respectively. Percent density was estimated from digitized mammograms using the computer-assisted Cumulus thresholding program, and variation was estimated from an automated algorithm. We estimated hazards ratios (HRs), odds ratios (ORs), the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using Cox proportional hazards models for the cohort and logistic regression for case-control studies, with adjustment for age and body mass index. We performed a meta-analysis using random study effects to obtain pooled estimates of the associations between the two mammographic measures and breast cancer. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS The variation measure was statistically significantly associated with the risk of breast cancer in all three studies (highest vs lowest quartile: HR = 2.0 [95% CI = 1.3 to 3.1]; OR = 2.7 [95% CI = 2.1 to 3.6]; OR = 2.4 [95% CI = 1.4 to 3.9]; [corrected] all P (trend) < .001). [corrected]. The risk estimates and AUCs for the variation measure were similar to [corrected] those for percent density (AUCs for variation = 0.60-0.62 and [corrected] AUCs for percent density = 0.61-0.65). [corrected]. A meta-analysis of the three studies demonstrated similar associations [corrected] between variation and breast cancer (highest vs lowest quartile: RR = 1.8, 95% CI = 1.4 to 2.3) and [corrected] percent density and breast cancer (highest vs lowest quartile: RR = 2.3, 95% CI = 1.9 to 2.9). CONCLUSION The association between the automated variation measure and the risk of breast cancer is at least as strong as that for percent density. Efforts to further evaluate and translate the variation measure to the clinical setting are warranted.