Breast cancer is the most common nonskin cancer among women in the United States and the second leading cause of cancer death. The median age at diagnosis is 62 years, and an estimated 1 in 8 women will develop breast cancer at some point in their lifetime. African American women are more likely to die of breast cancer compared with women of other races.To update the 2013 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on medications for risk reduction of primary breast cancer.The USPSTF reviewed evidence on the accuracy of risk assessment methods to identify women who could benefit from risk-reducing medications for breast cancer, as well as evidence on the effectiveness, adverse effects, and subgroup variations of these medications. The USPSTF reviewed evidence from randomized trials, observational studies, and diagnostic accuracy studies of risk stratification models in women without preexisting breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ.The USPSTF found convincing evidence that risk assessment tools can predict the number of cases of breast cancer expected to develop in a population. However, these risk assessment tools perform modestly at best in discriminating between individual women who will or will not develop breast cancer. The USPSTF found convincing evidence that risk-reducing medications (tamoxifen, raloxifene, or aromatase inhibitors) provide at least a moderate benefit in reducing risk for invasive estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer in postmenopausal women at increased risk for breast cancer. The USPSTF found that the benefits of taking tamoxifen, raloxifene, and aromatase inhibitors to reduce risk for breast cancer are no greater than small in women not at increased risk for the disease. The USPSTF found convincing evidence that tamoxifen and raloxifene and adequate evidence that aromatase inhibitors are associated with small to moderate harms. Overall, the USPSTF determined that the net benefit of taking medications to reduce risk of breast cancer is larger in women who have a greater risk for developing breast cancer.The USPSTF recommends that clinicians offer to prescribe risk-reducing medications, such as tamoxifen, raloxifene, or aromatase inhibitors, to women who are at increased risk for breast cancer and at low risk for adverse medication effects. (B recommendation) The USPSTF recommends against the routine use of risk-reducing medications, such as tamoxifen, raloxifene, or aromatase inhibitors, in women who are not at increased risk for breast cancer. (D recommendation) This recommendation applies to asymptomatic women 35 years and older, including women with previous benign breast lesions on biopsy (such as atypical ductal or lobular hyperplasia and lobular carcinoma in situ). This recommendation does not apply to women who have a current or previous diagnosis of breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ.

The NCCN Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis provide health care providers with a practical, consistent framework for screening and evaluating a spectrum of clinical presentations and breast lesions. The NCCN Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis Panel is composed of a multidisciplinary team of experts in the field, including representation from medical oncology, gynecologic oncology, surgical oncology, internal medicine, family practice, preventive medicine, pathology, diagnostic and interventional radiology, as well as patient advocacy. The NCCN Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis Panel meets at least annually to review emerging data and comments from reviewers within their institutions to guide updates to existing recommendations. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel’s decision-making and discussion surrounding the most recent updates to the guideline’s screening recommendations.

The Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRAT) of the National Cancer Institute is widely used for estimating absolute risk of invasive breast cancer. However, the absolute risk estimates for Asian and Pacific Islander American (APA) women are based on data from white women. We developed a model for projecting absolute invasive breast cancer risk in APA women and compared its projections to those from BCRAT.Data from 589 women with breast cancer (case patients) and 952 women without breast cancer (control subjects) in the Asian American Breast Cancer Study were used to compute relative and attributable risks based on the age at menarche, number of affected mothers, sisters, and daughters, and number of previous benign biopsies. Absolute risks were obtained by combining this information with ethnicity-specific data from the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program and with US ethnicity-specific mortality data to create the Asian American Breast Cancer Study model (AABCS model). Independent data from APA women in the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) were used to check the calibration and discriminatory accuracy of the AABCS model.The AABCS model estimated absolute risk separately for Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, Hawaiian, Other Pacific Islander, and Other Asian women. Relative and attributable risks for APA women were comparable to those in BCRAT, but the AABCS model usually estimated lower-risk projections than BCRAT in Chinese and Filipino, but not in Hawaiian women, and not in every age and ethnic subgroup. The AABCS model underestimated absolute risk by 17% (95% confidence interval = 1% to 38%) in independent data from WHI, but APA women in the WHI had incidence rates approximately 18% higher than those estimated from the SEER program.The AABCS model was calibrated to ethnicity-specific incidence rates from the SEER program for projecting absolute invasive breast cancer risk and is preferable to BCRAT for counseling APA women.

To assist in medical counseling, we present a method to estimate the chance that a woman with given age and risk factors will develop breast cancer over a specified interval. The risk factors used were age at menarche, age at first live birth, number of previous biopsies, and number of first-degree relatives with breast cancer. A model of relative risks for various combinations of these factors was developed from case-control data from the Breast Cancer Detection Demonstration Project (BCDDP). The model allowed for the fact that relative risks associated with previous breast biopsies were smaller for women aged 50 or more than for younger women. Thus, the proportional hazards models for those under age 50 and for those of age 50 or more. The baseline age-specific hazard rate, which is the rate for a patient without identified risk factors, is computed as the product of the observed age-specific composite hazard rate times the quantity 1 minus the attributable risk. We calculated individualized breast cancer probabilities from information on relative risks and the baseline hazard rate. These calculations take competing risks and the interval of risk into account. Our data were derived from women who participated in the BCDDP and who tended to return for periodic examinations. For this reason, the risk projections given are probably most reliable for counseling women who plan to be examined about once a year.

Background: The Gail model has been widely used and validated with conflicting results. The current study aims to evaluate the performance of different versions of the Gail model by means of systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis (TSA).Methods: Three systematic review and meta-analyses were conducted. Pooled expected-to-observed (E/O) ratio and pooled area under the curve (AUC) were calculated using the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model. Pooled sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio were evaluated by bivariate mixed-effects model. TSA was also conducted to determine whether the evidence was sufficient and conclusive.Results: Gail model 1 accurately predicted breast cancer risk in American women (pooled E/O = 1.03; 95% CI 0. 76-1.40). The pooled E/O ratios of Caucasian-American Gail model 2 in American, European and Asian women were 0.98 (95% CI 0.91-1.06), 1.07 (95% CI 0.66-1.74) and 2.29 (95% CI 1.95-2.68), respectively. Additionally, Asian-American Gail model 2 overestimated the risk for Asian women about two times (pooled E/O = 1.82; 95% CI 1. 31-2.51). TSA showed that evidence in Asian women was sufficient; nonetheless, the results in American and European women need further verification.The pooled AUCs for Gail model 1 in American and European women and Asian females were 0.55 (95% CI 0.53-0.56) and 0.75 (95% CI 0.63-0.88), respectively, and the pooled AUCs of Caucasian-American Gail model 2 for American, Asian and European females were 0.61 (95% CI 0.59-0.63), 0.55 (95% CI 0.52-0.58) and 0.58 (95% CI 0.55-0.62), respectively. The pooled sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio of Gail model 1 were 0.63 (95% CI 0.27-0.89), 0.91 (95% CI 0. 87-0.94) and 17.38 (95% CI 2.66-113.70), respectively, and the corresponding indexes of Gail model 2 were 0.35 (95% CI 0.17-0.59), 0.86 (95% CI 0.76-0.92) and 3.38 (95% CI 1.40-8.17), respectively.Conclusions: The Gail model was more accurate in predicting the incidence of breast cancer in American and European females, while far less useful for individual-level risk prediction. Moreover, the Gail model may overestimate the risk in Asian women and the results were further validated by TSA, which is an addition to the three previous systematic review and meta-analyses.

Most of the genetic variants identified from genome-wide association studies of breast cancer have not been validated in Asian women. No risk assessment model that incorporates both genetic and clinical predictors is currently available to predict breast cancer risk in this population.We analyzed 12 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) identified in recent genome-wide association studies mostly of women of European ancestry as being associated with the risk of breast cancer in 3039 case patients and 3082 control subjects who participated in the Shanghai Breast Cancer Study. All participants were interviewed in person to obtain information regarding known and suspected risk factors for breast cancer. The c statistic, a measure of discrimination ability with a value ranging from 0.5 (random classification) to 1.0 (perfect classification), was estimated to evaluate the contribution of genetic and established clinical predictors of breast cancer to a newly established risk assessment model for Chinese women. Clinical predictors included in the model were age at menarche, age at first live birth, waist-to-hip ratio, family history of breast cancer, and a previous diagnosis of benign breast disease. The utility of the models in risk stratification was evaluated by estimating the proportion of breast cancer patients in the general population that could be accounted for above a given risk threshold as predicted by the models. All statistical tests were two-sided.Eight SNPs (rs2046210, rs1219648, rs3817198, rs8051542, rs3803662, rs889312, rs10941679, and rs13281615), each of which reflected a genetically independent locus, were found to be associated with the risk of breast cancer. A dose-response association was observed between the risk of breast cancer and the genetic risk score, which is an aggregate measure of the effect of these eight SNPs (odds ratio for women in the highest quintile of genetic risk score vs those in the lowest = 1.85, 95% confidence interval = 1.58 to 2.18, P(trend) = 2.5 x 10(-15)). The genetic risk score, the waist-to-hip ratio, and a previous diagnosis of benign breast disease were the top three predictors of the risk of breast cancer, each contributing statistically significantly (P <.001) to the full risk assessment model. The model, with a c statistic of 0.6295 after adjustment for overfitting, showed promise for stratifying women into different risk groups; women in the top 30% risk group accounted for nearly 50% of the breast cancers diagnosed in the general population.A risk assessment model that includes both genetic markers and clinical predictors may be useful to classify Asian women into relevant risk groups for cost-efficient screening and other prevention programs.

Recently, several genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified novel single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with breast cancer risk. However, most of the studies were conducted among Caucasians and only one from Chinese.

Approximately 100 common breast cancer susceptibility alleles have been identified in genome-wide association studies (GWAS). The utility of these variants in breast cancer risk prediction models has not been evaluated adequately in women of Asian ancestry.We evaluated 88 breast cancer risk variants that were identified previously by GWAS in 11,760 cases and 11,612 controls of Asian ancestry. SNPs confirmed to be associated with breast cancer risk in Asian women were used to construct a polygenic risk score (PRS). The relative and absolute risks of breast cancer by the PRS percentiles were estimated based on the PRS distribution, and were used to stratify women into different levels of breast cancer risk.We confirmed significant associations with breast cancer risk for SNPs in 44 of the 78 previously reported loci at P < 0.05. Compared with women in the middle quintile of the PRS, women in the top 1% group had a 2.70-fold elevated risk of breast cancer (95% CI: 2.15-3.40). The risk prediction model with the PRS had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.606. The lifetime risk of breast cancer for Shanghai Chinese women in the lowest and highest 1% of the PRS was 1.35% and 10.06%, respectively.Approximately one-half of GWAS-identified breast cancer risk variants can be directly replicated in East Asian women. Collectively, common genetic variants are important predictors for breast cancer risk. Using common genetic variants for breast cancer could help identify women at high risk of breast cancer.

Considering the lack of efficient breast cancer prediction models suitable for general population screening in China. We aimed to develop a risk prediction model to identify high-risk populations, to help with primary prevention of breast cancer among Han Chinese women.A cause-specific competing risk model was used to develop the Han Chinese Breast Cancer Prediction model. Data from the Shandong Case-Control Study (328 cases and 656 controls) and Taixing Prospective Cohort Study (13,176 participants) were used to develop and validate the model. The expected/observed (E/O) ratio and C-statistic were calculated to evaluate calibration and discriminative accuracy of the model, respectively.Compared with the reference level, the relative risks (RRs) for highest level of number of abortions, age at first live birth, history of benign breast disease, body mass index (BMI), family history of breast cancer, and life satisfaction scores were 6.3, 3.6, 4.3, 1.9, 3.3, 2.4, respectively. The model showed good calibration and discriminatory accuracy with an E/O ratio of 1.03 and C-statistic of 0.64.We developed a risk prediction model including fertility status and relevant disease history, as well as other modifiable risk factors. The model demonstrated good calibration and discrimination ability.

In contrast to developed countries, breast cancer in China is characterized by a rapidly escalating incidence rate in the past two decades, lower survival rate, and vast geographic variation. However, there is no validated risk prediction model in China to aid early detection yet.A large nationwide prospective cohort, China Kadoorie Biobank (CKB), was used to evaluate relative and attributable risks of invasive breast cancer. A total of 300,824 women free of any prior cancer were recruited during 2004-2008 and followed up to Dec 31, 2016. Cox models were used to identify breast cancer risk factors and build a relative risk model. Absolute risks were calculated by incorporating national age- and residence-specific breast cancer incidence and non-breast cancer mortality rates. We used an independent large prospective cohort, Shanghai Women's Health Study (SWHS), with 73,203 women to externally validate the calibration and discriminating accuracy.During a median of 10.2 years of follow-up in the CKB, 2287 cases were observed. The final model included age, residence area, education, BMI, height, family history of overall cancer, parity, and age at menarche. The model was well-calibrated in both the CKB and the SWHS, yielding expected/observed (E/O) ratios of 1.01 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.94-1.09) and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.89-0.99), respectively. After eliminating the effect of age and residence, the model maintained moderate but comparable discriminating accuracy compared with those of some previous externally validated models. The adjusted areas under the receiver operating curve (AUC) were 0.634 (95% CI, 0.608-0.661) and 0.585 (95% CI, 0.564-0.605) in the CKB and the SWHS, respectively.Based only on non-laboratory predictors, our model has a good calibration and moderate discriminating capacity. The model may serve as a useful tool to raise individuals' awareness and aid risk-stratified screening and prevention strategies.

To establish a preoperative nomogram incorporating morphological and dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) features to individually predict the risk of malignancy in patients with breast tumor. A total of 447 consecutive female patients who were divided into the primary cohort (n=326) and the validation cohort (n=121) were enrolled between March 2015 to January 2018. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to identify the potential independent indicators of malignancy. An MRI-based nomogram integrating morphological features and kinetic curves was developed to achieve individualized risk prediction of malignancy in patients with breast masses. The discrimination, calibration ability and clinical utility of the MRI-based model were assessed using C-index, calibration curve and decision curve analysis. Age, tumor size, margin, internal enhancement characteristics, and kinetic curve were confirmed as the independent predictors of malignancy. The AUC of MRI-based nomogram was 0.940 (95% CI: 0.911-0.970) and 0.894 (95% CI: 0.816-0.974) in the primary cohort and validation cohort, respectively. 447 patients were subdivided into the low-risk group (n=107) and high-risk group (n=340) based on the optimal cut-off value of 21.704. The high-risk patients had a higher likelihood of harboring malignancy. The MRI-based nomogram can be used to achieve an accurate individualized risk prediction of malignancy and reduce unnecessary breast biopsy.© The author(s).

Accurate risk assessment is essential for the success of population screening programs in breast cancer. Models with high sensitivity and specificity would enable programs to target more elaborate screening efforts to high-risk populations, while minimizing overtreatment for the rest. Artificial intelligence (AI)-based risk models have demonstrated a significant advance over risk models used today in clinical practice. However, the responsible deployment of novel AI requires careful validation across diverse populations. To this end, we validate our AI-based model, Mirai, across globally diverse screening populations.

Among all US women, breast cancer is the second most common cancer and the second most common cause of cancer death. In 2023, an estimated 43 170 women died of breast cancer. Non-Hispanic White women have the highest incidence of breast cancer and non-Hispanic Black women have the highest mortality rate.The USPSTF commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of different mammography-based breast cancer screening strategies by age to start and stop screening, screening interval, modality, use of supplemental imaging, or personalization of screening for breast cancer on the incidence of and progression to advanced breast cancer, breast cancer morbidity, and breast cancer-specific or all-cause mortality, and collaborative modeling studies to complement the evidence from the review.Cisgender women and all other persons assigned female at birth aged 40 years or older at average risk of breast cancer.The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that biennial screening mammography in women aged 40 to 74 years has a moderate net benefit. The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient to determine the balance of benefits and harms of screening mammography in women 75 years or older and the balance of benefits and harms of supplemental screening for breast cancer with breast ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), regardless of breast density.The USPSTF recommends biennial screening mammography for women aged 40 to 74 years. (B recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening mammography in women 75 years or older. (I statement) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of supplemental screening for breast cancer using breast ultrasonography or MRI in women identified to have dense breasts on an otherwise negative screening mammogram. (I statement).

To update the ASCO guideline on pharmacologic interventions for breast cancer risk reduction and provide guidance on clinical issues that arise when deciding to use endocrine therapy for breast cancer risk reduction.An Expert Panel conducted targeted systematic literature reviews to identify new studies.A randomized clinical trial that evaluated the use of anastrozole for reduction of estrogen receptor-positive breast cancers in postmenopausal women at increased risk of developing breast cancer provided the predominant basis for the update.In postmenopausal women at increased risk, the choice of endocrine therapy now includes anastrozole (1 mg/day) in addition to exemestane (25 mg/day), raloxifene (60 mg/day), or tamoxifen (20 mg/day). The decision regarding choice of endocrine therapy should take into consideration age, baseline comorbidities, and adverse effect profiles. Clinicians should not prescribe anastrozole, exemestane, or raloxifene for breast cancer risk reduction to premenopausal women. Tamoxifen 20 mg/day for 5 years is still considered standard of care for risk reduction in premenopausal women who are at least 35 years old and have completed childbearing. Data on low-dose tamoxifen as an alternative to the standard dose for both pre- and postmenopausal women with intraepithelial neoplasia are discussed in the Clinical Considerations section of this article. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines.

Six genes confer a high risk for developing breast cancer (BRCA1/2, TP53, PTEN, STK11, CDH1). Both BRCA1 and BRCA2 have DNA repair functions, and BRCA1/2 deficient tumors are now being targeted by poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors. Other genes conferring an increased risk for breast cancer include ATM, CHEK2, PALB2, BRIP1 and genome-wide association studies have identified lower penetrance alleles including FGFR2, a minor allele of which is associated with breast cancer. We review recent findings related to the function of some of these genes, and discuss how they can be targeted by various drugs. Gaining deeper insights in breast cancer susceptibility will improve our ability to identify those families at increased risk and permit the development of new and more specific therapeutic approaches.

Independent validation is essential to justify use of models of breast cancer risk prediction and inform decisions about prevention options and screening. Few independent validations had been done using cohorts for common breast cancer risk prediction models, and those that have been done had small sample sizes and short follow-up periods, and used earlier versions of the prediction tools. We aimed to validate the relative performance of four commonly used models of breast cancer risk and assess the effect of limited data input on each one's performance.In this validation study, we used the Breast Cancer Prospective Family Study Cohort (ProF-SC), which includes 18 856 women from Australia, Canada, and the USA who did not have breast cancer at recruitment, between March 17, 1992, and June 29, 2011. We selected women from the cohort who were 20-70 years old and had no previous history of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy or ovarian cancer, at least 2 months of follow-up data, and information available about family history of breast cancer. We used this selected cohort to calculate 10-year risk scores and compare four models of breast cancer risk prediction: the Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm model (BOADICEA), BRCAPRO, the Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRAT), and the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study model (IBIS). We compared model calibration based on the ratio of the expected number of breast cancer cases to the observed number of breast cancer cases in the cohort, and on the basis of their discriminatory ability to separate those who will and will not have breast cancer diagnosed within 10 years as measured with the concordance statistic (C-statistic). We did subgroup analyses to compare the performance of the models at 10 years in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers (ie, BRCA-positive women), tested non-carriers and untested participants (ie, BRCA-negative women), and participants younger than 50 years at recruitment. We also assessed the effect that limited data input (eg, restriction of the amount of family history and non-genetic information included) had on the models' performance.After median follow-up of 11·1 years (IQR 6·0-14·4), 619 (4%) of 15 732 women selected from the ProF-SC cohort study were prospectively diagnosed with breast cancer after recruitment, of whom 519 (84%) had histologically confirmed disease. BOADICEA and IBIS were well calibrated in the overall validation cohort, whereas BRCAPRO and BCRAT underpredicted risk (ratio of expected cases to observed cases 1·05 [95% CI 0·97-1·14] for BOADICEA, 1·03 [0·96-1·12] for IBIS, 0·59 [0·55-0·64] for BRCAPRO, and 0·79 [0·73-0·85] for BRCAT). The estimated C-statistics for the complete validation cohort were 0·70 (95% CI 0·68-0·72) for BOADICEA, 0·71 (0·69-0·73) for IBIS, 0·68 (0·65-0·70) for BRCAPRO, and 0·60 (0·58-0·62) for BCRAT. In subgroup analyses by BRCA mutation status, the ratio of expected to observed cases for BRCA-negative women was 1·02 (95% CI 0·93-1·12) for BOADICEA, 1·00 (0·92-1·10) for IBIS, 0·53 (0·49-0·58) for BRCAPRO, and 0·97 (0·89-1·06) for BCRAT. For BRCA-positive participants, BOADICEA and IBIS were well calibrated, but BRCAPRO underpredicted risk (ratio of expected to observed cases 1·17 [95% CI 0·99-1·38] for BOADICEA, 1·14 [0·96-1·35] for IBIS, and 0·80 [0·68-0·95] for BRCAPRO). We noted similar patterns of calibration for women younger than 50 years at recruitment. Finally, BOADICEA and IBIS predictive scores were not appreciably affected by limiting input data to family history for first-degree and second-degree relatives.Our results suggest that models that include multigenerational family history, such as BOADICEA and IBIS, have better ability to predict breast cancer risk, even for women at average or below-average risk of breast cancer. Although BOADICEA and IBIS performed similarly, further improvements in the accuracy of predictions could be possible with hybrid models that incorporate the polygenic risk component of BOADICEA and the non-family-history risk factors included in IBIS.US National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, Breast Cancer Research Foundation, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, Victorian Breast Cancer Research Consortium, Cancer Australia, National Breast Cancer Foundation, Queensland Cancer Fund, Cancer Councils of New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, and South Australia, and Cancer Foundation of Western Australia.Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.