Use of repeated mammograms to evaluate risk of breast cancer: a systematic review of methods used in the literature

Introduction

Evolving technology from film mammograms to digital images has changed the sources of data and ease of access to study a range of summary measures from breast mammograms and risk of breast cancer.¹ In particular, given women have repeated mammograms as part of a regular screening program,^2-4 access to repeated images has become more feasible in real time for risk classification. Improved risk classification is fundamental to counseling women for their risk management.^5,6

The leading measure for risk categorization extracted from mammograms is breast density.^7,8 This is now widely used and reported with many states requiring return of mammographic breast density measures to women as part of routine screening. Mammographic breast density is a strong reproducible risk factor for breast cancer across different approaches used to measure it (clinical judgement or semi/automated estimation).⁷ Mammographic breast density has typically been measured as an average value across both left and right breasts to relate to risk of subsequent breast cancer. Change in breast density has been much less frequently studied. However, growing access to the large data from mammograms encourages a reassessment of the approaches employed to assess change in density and risk of subsequent breast cancer.^9,10

Guidelines recommend screening mammography from age 45 (American Cancer Society²) or 50 (US Preventive Services Task Force³), with either annual or biennial mammography.⁴ Women generally have a series of repeated mammograms (longitudinal data). Additionally, these recurring screening mammograms capture both the left and right breast (bivariate profiles). See Figure 1. Despite the availability of bivariate longitudinal images, general decision making is still based on mammographic breast density at a point in time, averaged between the two breasts,¹¹ to forecast the overall breast cancer risk. While a growing number of studies use more than just baseline mammogram values which could improve risk classification and is promising for clinical decision making, we note there is no systematic review and summary of these studies, although a recent publication reported results from 9 studies and combined results showing a positive association between increase in BIRADs density category and increase in breast cancer risk.¹² A richer summary of methods used to classify density and other features on mammograms and evaluate change in relation to risk can identify common approaches and help guide the use of change for breast cancer risk prediction. Therefore, we undertook the current systematic review.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1.

Illustration of the available mammography data from routine screening.

We aim to summarize the methods used, the time from mammogram to diagnosis of breast cancer, methods for analysis of data from either one or both breasts (averaged or assessed individually), and identify gaps in evidence to prioritize future studies.

Materials and Methods

Results

The search and study selection process is shown in Figure 2. A total of 11,111 results were retrieved from the initial database literature search and imported into Endnote. 11 citations from ClinicalTrials.gov were retrieved and added to an Excel file library. After removing duplicates 4,863 unique citations remained for analysis. The search was run again in October 2021 to retrieve citations that were published since the original search. A total of 1,633 results were retrieved and imported to Endnote. After removing duplicates, including duplicates from the original search, 466 unique citations were added to the pool of results for analysis. Between the two searches a total of 11,577 results were retrieved, and there were 5,329 unique citations.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2:

PRISMA 2020 Flow Diagram

Of the 5,329 unique citations, 5,124 were excluded based on review of title and abstract. 205 full-text reports were retrieved and assessed for eligibility by two readers. Of these, 186 were excluded for reasons such as not measuring change, not having risk of breast cancer as an outcome, being an abstract or a duplicate paper, or not being published in English.

10 potential reports were identified from hand searching of citations. All of these were reviewed by full-text, and 9 were excluded for being duplicates or not having a measure of change in a mammographic feature.

After fully screening search results, 20 studies meeting eligibility criteria were included in the review.^13-32 These 20 studies used 2 or more mammograms to relate change in density or other features to risk of breast cancer and met eligibility criteria as set out in the selection flow chart. See PRISMA flow chart (Figure 2).

The key descriptive features of the 20 eligible studies are summarized in table 1. These rely on mammography film records (10 studies) though studies published from 2016 onwards often use digital images. Number of cases included in each study varied from a low of 45 cases¹⁸ to a high of 1592 in a Spanish case control study.²³ See table 1.

Measures of breast density used in these studies are summarized in Table 2. BIRADS (6 studies) and Cumulus (5 studies) were the most commonly used methods for density assessment. Automated assessments were used on digital mammograms. Table 2 shows that the time between mammograms varied across studies from 1 to median of 4.1 years reflecting differences in guidelines and screening practice across countries. 20 association studies reported time between mammograms of 1 to 3 or more years, and most used only 2 mammogram measures of density or other features. Of note, from the 20 studies only 9 used more than 2 images separated in time to assess change in relation to risk. Furthermore, the covariates used to adjust estimates of association varied substantially across these studies.

Data from studies of change in mammographic density or features and subsequent risk incorporated into prediction models are summarized in Table 3. Here we also summarize the number of mammograms used and the prediction horizon. Only 1 (Kerlikowske¹⁹ based on change in BIRADs category between 2 mammograms) reported prediction horizon of 5 and 10 years. In others the prediction horizon was not clearly defined with investigators using the next screening mammogram.^{14,21,29,30,33} There is much variation in approaches to analysis used to relate change in mammographic breast density or features to breast cancer risk. Approaches included change in BIRADs category, change from first to last image (ignoring intermediate images), and change in density as a continuous measure.

These studies show modest improvement in estimating 5- and 10-year risk with AUC increasing from 0.635 to 0.640 after adding change in density.¹⁹ Brandt shows similar modest change in AUC to discriminate cases from controls using volumetric percent density change in cancerous breast and normal breast from 0.52 to 0.54 though the time horizon appears to be the time between the two mammograms used for this study (median time 3 years).¹⁴ Tan on the other hand evaluated bilateral asymmetry of breast density between left and right breast as a marker of near term cancer risk.²⁹

The statistical methods used to model change and assumptions including breast imaged (ipsilateral or contralateral to the cancer) and approach to comparing cases and controls for the other association studies are summarized in Table 4. Some studies used change in BIRADs category while others had continuous breast density generated from machine derived measures.

Discussion

We identified 20 studies addressing change in mammographic breast density or other features and risk of breast cancer. Of these, 9 had only 2 images giving only modest ability to detect an association between change in density and risk of breast cancer. Only 6 studies report AUC for their analysis, and 5 of these use this measure to summarize discrimination of the cases from the controls. Only Kerlikowske uses change in density categories from BIRADs classification to predict 5- and 10-year risk. In the study, adding change in density to the prediction model gave a modest improvement in model performance. Overall, approaches to analysis of repeated mammogram images reflect the underlying approach to density (categorical or continuous) and this variation further limits interpretation of this body of evidence.

Focus of these studies is predominantly on mammographic breast density with limited study of change in texture features. Only 2 studies look at change in texture features.^21,29 A recent meta-analysis of change in density and breast cancer risk used data from 4 cohort studies and reported a pooled HR for increase in breast density compared to women with non-dense breast tissue (HR = 1.61; 95% CI 1.33-1.92) for studies reporting hazard ratios and pooled OR those reporting odds ratios (OR = 1.98; 95% CI 1.31-3.0).¹² In that meta-analysis, decrease in breast density was associated with reduced risk compared to women with stable breast density (HR = 0.78; 95% CI 0.71-0.87). Of note, a single study contributed multiple measures of change in density within this analysis without adjustment for use of a common reference group.

Interval between images used for change is quite variable (range from as short as 1 year to median of 4.1 years). The majority of studies evaluate change in category of density; for example, BIRADs not a continuous measure of density. With only 2 images used, change in category is limited and the shorter time interval between images reduces power to differentiate trajectories of mammographic features over time. We might ask, given the low rate of decline in mammographic density with age as described,^34,35 is the interval used in these studies sufficient to detect meaningful change? To address this gap in the literature, future studies should use repeated measures methods incorporating more mammographic images over longer time periods.

There is a steady decline in mammographic breast density through midlife to menopause and beyond.^34,35 This slow decrease over time makes a discrete change in category harder to capture and will be limited compared to use of continuous mammographic density measures that are now becoming more broadly available. Future studies using the continuous density measures may better capture change and the risk associated with these changes.

While breast cancer rarely develops simultaneously in both breasts, current models still utilize average mammographic density and/or other features between the two breasts in conducting the risk prediction. Although mammographic density from the two breasts appears to be highly correlated at the baseline, deviation between the two breasts may be better captured over time using repeated mammography. Based on this review of the literature, we conclude that longitudinal bivariate analysis³⁶ of mammograms has never been used in breast cancer epidemiology.

We note limited use of change measures for improving risk prediction. Prediction to next routine mammogram may reflect available evidence but it is not helpful for current risk reduction recommendations for high-risk women (lifestyle changes, chemoprevention, or surgery), each typically with a longer term 5- or 10-year time horizon.^5,37

We live in a precision medicine society. For high-income countries, this requires translation of advances in biotechnology to focus treatment and prevention according to level of risk, and further balance risks and benefits of treatment or prevention.³⁸ Cancer prevention is often conceptualized as strategies that interrupt cancer pathways and maximize the short- and long-term benefits of prevention intervention.^39-41 To implement precision prevention, we need refined strategies for 5- or 10-year risk classification³⁸ that can be applied in real time in the clinical setting, such as in the context of screening mammography which remains a standard for early detection of BC.^4,42 Focus, therefore, should be placed on better use of repeated mammographic measures of breast features to stratify risk and identify both the high-risk groups and also the low-risk groups⁴³ to tailor screening and prevention strategies.⁴⁴

Limitations

There are several limitations with the current review. Heterogeneity of the data did not allow for a meta-analysis. Additionally, systematic reviews are always subject to possible publication bias if all relevant studies have not been published. We used several strategies to reduce the risk of this including using a thorough search strategy designed by a medical librarian with expertise in searching for systematic reviews, and searching clinicaltrials.gov for any ongoing studies.

Conclusion

Despite current limitations in the literature, the more widespread use of digital mammography and availability of digital images repeated over time offers growing opportunities to improve risk classification and risk prediction for women.

Complete Search Strategies