Mustapha Abubakar1, Shaoqi Fan1, Erin Aiello Bowles2, Lea Widemann1, Máire A Duggan3, Ruth M Pfeiffer1, Roni T Falk1, Scott Lawrence4, Kathryn Richert-Boe5, Andrew G Glass5, Teresa M Kimes5, Jonine D Figueroa6, Thomas E Rohan7, Gretchen L Gierach1. 1. Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institute of Health, USA. 2. Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA. 3. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 4. Molecular and Digital Pathology Laboratory, Cancer Genomics Research Laboratory, Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc, Frederick, MD, USA. 5. Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Portland, OR, USA. 6. Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, The University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK. 7. Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA.
Abstract
Background: Benign breast disease (BBD) is a strong breast cancer risk factor, but identifying patients that might develop invasive breast cancer remains a challenge. Methods: By applying machine-learning to digitized hematoxylin and eosin-stained biopsies and computer-assisted thresholding to mammograms obtained circa BBD diagnosis, we generated quantitative tissue composition metrics and determined their association with future invasive breast cancer diagnosis. Archival breast biopsies and mammograms were obtained for women (18-86 years of age) in a case-control study, nested within a cohort of 15 395 BBD patients from Kaiser Permanente Northwest (1970-2012), followed through mid-2015. Patients who developed incident invasive breast cancer (ie, cases; n = 514) and those who did not (ie, controls; n = 514) were matched on BBD diagnosis age and plan membership duration. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Results: Increasing epithelial area on the BBD biopsy was associated with increasing breast cancer risk (odds ratio [OR]Q4 vs Q1 = 1.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.13 to 3.04; P trend = .02). Conversely, increasing stroma was associated with decreased risk in nonproliferative, but not proliferative, BBD (P heterogeneity = .002). Increasing epithelium-to-stroma proportion (ORQ4 vs Q1 = 2.06, 95% CI =1.28 to 3.33; P trend = .002) and percent mammographic density (MBD) (ORQ4 vs Q1 = 2.20, 95% CI = 1.20 to 4.03; P trend = .01) were independently and strongly predictive of increased breast cancer risk. In combination, women with high epithelium-to-stroma proportion and high MBD had substantially higher risk than those with low epithelium-to-stroma proportion and low MBD (OR = 2.27, 95% CI = 1.27 to 4.06; P trend = .005), particularly among women with nonproliferative (P trend = .01) vs proliferative (P trend = .33) BBD. Conclusion: Among BBD patients, increasing epithelium-to-stroma proportion on BBD biopsies and percent MBD at BBD diagnosis were independently and jointly associated with increasing breast cancer risk. These findings were particularly striking for women with nonproliferative disease (comprising approximately 70% of all BBD patients), for whom relevant predictive biomarkers are lacking. Published by Oxford University Press 2021.
Background: Benign breast disease (BBD) is a strong breast cancer risk factor, but identifying patients that might develop invasive breast cancer remains a challenge. Methods: By applying machine-learning to digitized hematoxylin and eosin-stained biopsies and computer-assisted thresholding to mammograms obtained circa BBD diagnosis, we generated quantitative tissue composition metrics and determined their association with future invasive breast cancer diagnosis. Archival breast biopsies and mammograms were obtained for women (18-86 years of age) in a case-control study, nested within a cohort of 15 395 BBD patients from Kaiser Permanente Northwest (1970-2012), followed through mid-2015. Patients who developed incident invasive breast cancer (ie, cases; n = 514) and those who did not (ie, controls; n = 514) were matched on BBD diagnosis age and plan membership duration. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Results: Increasing epithelial area on the BBD biopsy was associated with increasing breast cancer risk (odds ratio [OR]Q4 vs Q1 = 1.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.13 to 3.04; P trend = .02). Conversely, increasing stroma was associated with decreased risk in nonproliferative, but not proliferative, BBD (P heterogeneity = .002). Increasing epithelium-to-stroma proportion (ORQ4 vs Q1 = 2.06, 95% CI =1.28 to 3.33; P trend = .002) and percent mammographic density (MBD) (ORQ4 vs Q1 = 2.20, 95% CI = 1.20 to 4.03; P trend = .01) were independently and strongly predictive of increased breast cancer risk. In combination, women with high epithelium-to-stroma proportion and high MBD had substantially higher risk than those with low epithelium-to-stroma proportion and low MBD (OR = 2.27, 95% CI = 1.27 to 4.06; P trend = .005), particularly among women with nonproliferative (P trend = .01) vs proliferative (P trend = .33) BBD. Conclusion: Among BBD patients, increasing epithelium-to-stroma proportion on BBD biopsies and percent MBD at BBD diagnosis were independently and jointly associated with increasing breast cancer risk. These findings were particularly striking for women with nonproliferative disease (comprising approximately 70% of all BBD patients), for whom relevant predictive biomarkers are lacking. Published by Oxford University Press 2021.
Authors: Celine M Vachon; Kathleen R Brandt; Karthik Ghosh; Christopher G Scott; Shaun D Maloney; Michael J Carston; V Shane Pankratz; Thomas A Sellers Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Rhonda Arthur; Yihong Wang; Kenny Ye; Andrew G Glass; Mindy Ginsberg; Olivier Loudig; Thomas Rohan Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-06-22 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Karthik Ghosh; Celine M Vachon; V Shane Pankratz; Robert A Vierkant; Stephanie S Anderson; Kathleen R Brandt; Daniel W Visscher; Carol Reynolds; Marlene H Frost; Lynn C Hartmann Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2010-10-29 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: A Huijbers; R A E M Tollenaar; G W v Pelt; E C M Zeestraten; S Dutton; C C McConkey; E Domingo; V T H B M Smit; R Midgley; B F Warren; E C Johnstone; D J Kerr; W E Mesker Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2012-08-02 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Kevin P McKian; Carol A Reynolds; Daniel W Visscher; Aziza Nassar; Derek C Radisky; Robert A Vierkant; Amy C Degnim; Judy C Boughey; Karthik Ghosh; Stephanie S Anderson; Douglas Minot; Jill L Caudill; Celine M Vachon; Marlene H Frost; V Shane Pankratz; Lynn C Hartmann Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-10-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: C L Downey; S A Simpkins; J White; D L Holliday; J L Jones; L B Jordan; J Kulka; S Pollock; S S Rajan; H H Thygesen; A M Hanby; V Speirs Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2014-02-18 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Song Yao; Peter T Campbell; Tomotaka Ugai; Gretchen Gierach; Montserrat Garcia-Closas; Timothy R Rebbeck; Christine B Ambrosone; Shuji Ogino; Mustapha Abubakar; Viktor Adalsteinsson; Jonas Almeida; Paul Brennan; Stephen Chanock; Todd Golub; Samir Hanash; Curtis Harris; Cassandra A Hathaway; Karl Kelsey; Maria Teresa Landi; Faisal Mahmood; Christina Newton; John Quackenbush; Scott Rodig; Nikolaus Schultz; Guillermo Tearney; Shelley S Tworoger; Molin Wang; Xuehong Zhang Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2022-06-27 Impact factor: 2.532
Authors: Mark E Sherman; Matthew W Conklin; Gretchen L Gierach; Clara Bodelon; Maeve Mullooly; Ruth M Pfeiffer; Shaoqi Fan; Mustapha Abubakar; Petra Lenz; Pamela M Vacek; Donald L Weaver; Sally D Herschorn; Jason M Johnson; Brian L Sprague; Stephen Hewitt; John Shepherd; Serghei Malkov; Patricia J Keely; Kevin W Eliceiri Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2021-11-09 Impact factor: 6.466