Use of repeated mammograms to evaluate risk of breast cancer: a systematic review of methods used in the literature =================================================================================================================== * Akila Anandarajah * Yongzhen Chen * Carolyn Stoll * Angela Hardi * Shu Jiang * Graham A. Colditz ## Abstract **Objective** This systematic review aimed to assess methods used to relate repeated mammographic images to breast cancer risk, including the time from mammogram to diagnosis of breast cancer, and methods for analysis of data from either one or both breasts (averaged or assessed individually). **Design** A systematic review was performed. **Setting** The databases including Medline (Ovid) 1946-, [Embase.com](http://Embase.com) 1947-, CINAHL Plus 1937-, Scopus 1823-, Cochrane Library (including CENTRAL), and [Clinicaltrials.gov](http://Clinicaltrials.gov) were searched through October 2021 to extract published articles in English describing the relationship of change in mammographic features with risk of breast cancer. **Participants** Women with mammogram images. **Main outcome measure** Breast cancer incidence. **Results** Twenty articles were included in the final review. We found that BIRADs and Cumulus were most commonly used for classifying mammographic density and automated assessment was used on more recent digital mammograms. Time between mammograms varied from 1 to median of 4.1 years, and only 9 of the studies used more than 2 mammograms to quantify features. One study used a prediction horizon of 5 and 10 years, one used 5 years only and another 10 years only, while in the others the prediction horizon was not clearly defined with investigators using the next screening mammogram. **Conclusion** This review provided an updated overview of the state of the art and revealed research gaps; based on these, we provide recommendations for future studies using repeated measure methods for mammogram images to make the use of accumulating image data. By following these recommendations, we expect to improve risk classification and risk prediction for women to tailor screening and prevention strategies to level of risk. **Strengths and limitations of the study** * To the best of our knowledge, this is the most recent systematic review on the topic of using multiple mammogram images to define risk of breast cancer. * This review was performed strictly following systematic review guidelines including a medical librarian with expertise in searching, multiple independent reviewers involved in study selection and data extraction, and reporting following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. * Due to heterogeneity of methods for assessment and classification (categorical and continuous) of mammographic features including breast density and time to breast cancer, we did not perform risk of bias or conduct a meta-analysis. * Few studies looked at repeated measures of non-density features. ## 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. ![Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/11/27/2021.11.10.21266200/F1.medium.gif) [Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/11/27/2021.11.10.21266200/F1) 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 ### Eligibility Criteria #### Population We considered all studies of adult women (at least eighteen years old) involving original data. Abstract-only papers, review articles, and conference papers were excluded. Intervention: We included studies measuring change in mammographic features between mammograms. A study had to use at least two different mammograms to be included. #### Outcomes Our primary outcomes of interest were risk of breast cancer, including both invasive and in situ cancers, and differences in mammographic features over time. Risk of breast cancer was required to be dichotomized (yes/no), and analysis of other risks (e.g., risk of interval vs. screen-detected cancer) were not included. Studies were required to assess the relationship of the change in mammographic features with risk of breast cancer. Only studies available in English were included. ### Information Sources The published literature was searched using strategies designed by a medical librarian (AH) for the concepts of breast density, mammography, and related synonyms. These strategies were created using a combination of controlled vocabulary terms and keywords, and were executed in Medline (Ovid) 1946-, [Embase.com](http://Embase.com) 1947-, CINAHL Plus 1937-, Scopus 1823-, Cochrane Library (including CENTRAL), and [Clinicaltrials.gov](http://Clinicaltrials.gov). Results were limited to English using database-supplied filters. Letters, comments, notes, and editorials were also excluded from the results using publication type filters and limits. ### Search Strategy An example search is provided below (for Embase). (‘breast density’/exp OR ((breast NEAR/3 densit*):ti,ab,kw OR (mammary NEAR/3 densit*):ti,ab,kw OR (mammographic NEAR/3 densit*):ti,ab,kw)) AND (‘mammography’/deOR mammograph*:ti,ab,kwOR mammogram*:ti,ab,kwOR mastrography:ti,ab,kwOR ‘digital breast tomosynthesis’:ti,ab,kwOR ‘x-ray breast tomosynthesis’:ti,ab,kw)NOT(‘editorial’/it OR ‘letter’/it OR ‘note’/it) AND [english]/lim The search was completed for the first time on September 9, 2020, and was run again on October 14, 2021 to retrieve citations that were published since the original search. The second search was dated limited to 2020-present. Full search strategies are provided in the appendix. ### Selection Process Two reviewers (AA, CS) worked independently to review the titles and abstracts of the records. Next, the two reviewers independently screened the full text of the articles that they did not reject and indicated those measuring mammographic features over time, which were ultimately eligible for inclusion. Any disagreements of which articles to include were resolved by consensus. Reference lists of included studies were hand searched to find additional relevant studies. ### Data Collection Process We created a data extraction sheet which two reviewers (AA, YC) used to independently extract data from the included studies. Disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. If included studies were missing any desired information, any additional papers from the work cited, such as previous reports, methods papers, or protocols, were reviewed for this information. ### Data Items Any estimate of change in a mammographic feature over time or risk of breast cancer was eligible to be included. Predictive ability could be evaluated using an area under the curve, hazard ratio, odds ratio, relative risk, 5-year risk, or p value. Change could be reported as a percentage or an absolute value. No restrictions on follow-up time were placed. For studies that reported multiple risk estimates, we prioritized the primary models which were discussed in the results section of the paper. If all models were discussed equally, then we listed the models with the best ability to predict breast cancer. For studies that reported multiple types of change, we prioritized the primary types which were discussed in the results section of the paper. If all types were discussed equally, then we listed the most frequent types of change. We collected data on: the report: author, publication year the study: location/institution, number of cases, number of controls the research design and features: lapsed time from mammogram to diagnosis the mammogram: machine type, mammogram view(s), breast(s) used for analysis, time between mammograms, number of mammograms the model: how density was measured, type of model, baseline variable(s), texture feature(s), prediction horizon ### Risk of Bias The objective of this review is to summarize the methods and analysis techniques used to assess change in mammographic features and risk of breast cancer rather than to quantitatively synthesize the results of the studies. Therefore, a risk of bias assessment, while typically performed in a systematic review, would not serve the objective and was not performed. ### Patient and public involvement No patient involvement ### Human subjects This study did not involve human subjects and therefore oversight from an Institutional Review Board was not required. ### Registration and protocol This review was not registered and a protocol was not prepared. ## 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](http://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. ![Figure 2:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/11/27/2021.11.10.21266200/F2.medium.gif) [Figure 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/11/27/2021.11.10.21266200/F2) 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. View this table: [Table 1](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/11/27/2021.11.10.21266200/T1) Table 1 Studies using repeated assessment of mammographic features included in systematic review (sorted by year published) 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. View this table: [Table 2](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/11/27/2021.11.10.21266200/T2) Table 2 Features of studies using repeated measures of mammographic features and breast cancer risk (sorted by increasing number of mammograms used) 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. View this table: [Table 3](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/11/27/2021.11.10.21266200/T3) Table 3 Models of repeated measures of mammographic features and incidence of breast cancer reporting AUC (sorted by number mammograms used) 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. View this table: [Table 4](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/11/27/2021.11.10.21266200/T4) Table 4 Analytical models used for repeated measures of mammographic features that do not report AUC (sorted by number mammograms used) ## 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](http://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. ## Data Availability All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors ## Complete Search Strategies ### Search strategies designed and executed by Angela Hardi, MLIS [Embase.com](http://Embase.com) =3,919 results on 9/9/2020 (Limited to English; editorials, letters, and notes excluded from results) **Updated search** (date limited to 2020-present): 602 on 10/14/2021 (‘breast density’/exp OR ((breast NEAR/3 densit*):ti,ab,kw OR (mammary NEAR/3 densit*):ti,ab,kw OR (mammographic NEAR/3 densit*):ti,ab,kw)) AND (‘mammography’/de OR mammograph*:ti,ab,kw OR mammogram*:ti,ab,kw OR mastrography:ti,ab,kw OR ‘digital breast tomosynthesis’:ti,ab,kw OR ‘x-ray breast tomosynthesis’:ti,ab,kw) NOT (‘editorial’/it OR ‘letter’/it OR ‘note’/it) AND [english]/lim ### Ovid Medline All = 2694 results on 9/9/2020 (Limited to English; editorials, comments, and letters excluded) **Updated search** (date limited to 2020-present): 440 results on 10/14/2021 (Breast Density/ OR (breast adj3 densit*).ti,ab. OR (mammary adj3 densit*).ti,ab. OR (mammographic adj3 densit*).ti,ab.) AND (Mammography/ OR mammograph*.ti,ab. OR mammogram*.ti,ab. OR mastrography.ti,ab. OR “digital breast tomosynthesis”.ti,ab. OR “x-ray breast tomosynthesis”.ti,ab.) NOT (comment.pt. OR editorial.pt. OR letter.pt.) ### CINAHL Plus =978 results on 9/9/2020; (Limited to English and these publication types: Clinical Trial, Corrected Article, Journal Article, Meta Analysis, Meta Synthesis, Practice Guidelines, Proceedings, Protocol, Randomized Controlled Trial, Research, Review, Systematic Review) **Updated search** (dated limited to 2020-present): 135 results on 10/14/2021 ((MH “Breast Tissue Density”) OR AB(breast N3 densit*) OR TI(breast N3 densit*) OR AB(mammary N3 densit*) TI(mammary N3 densit*) OR AB(mammographic N3 densit*) OR TI(mammographic N3 densit*)) AND ((MH “Mammography”) OR AB(mammograph*) OR TI(mammograph*) OR AB(mammogram*) OR TI(mammogram*) OR AB(mastrography) OR TI(mastrography) OR AB(“digital breast tomosynthesis”) OR TI(“digital breast tomosynthesis”) OR AB(“x-ray breast tomosynthesis”) OR TI(“x-ray breast tomosynthesis”)) ### Scopus =3,162 results on 9/9/2020 (Limited to English; editorials, notes, letters, and book chapters excluded from results) **Updated search** (date limited to 2020-present): 423 results on 10/14/2021 TITLE-ABS ((breast W/3 densit*) OR (mammary W/3 densit*) OR (mammographic W/3 densit*)) AND TITLE-ABS (mammograph* OR mammogram* OR mastrography OR “digital breast tomosynthesis” OR “x-ray breast tomosynthesis”) AND (EXCLUDE (DOCTYPE, “no”) OR EXCLUDE (DOCTYPE, “ch”) OR EXCLUDE (DOCTYPE, “le”) OR EXCLUDE (DOCTYPE, “ed”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, “English”)) ### Cochrane Library =358 results on 9/9/2020 (1 Cochrane Protocol and 357 results from CENTRAL Trials) **Updated Search** (date limited 2020-present in CENTRAL Trials) = 32 results on 10/14/2021 ID Search #1 MeSH descriptor: [Breast Density] explode all trees #2 ((breast NEAR/3 densit*) OR (mammary NEAR/3 densit*) OR (mammary NEAR/3 densit*) OR (mammographic NEAR/3 densit*)):ti,ab,kw #3 #1 OR #2 #4 MeSH descriptor: [Mammography] explode all trees #5 (mammograph* OR mammogram* OR mastrography OR “digital breast tomosynthesis” OR “xray breast tomosynthesis”):ti,ab,kw #6 #4 OR #5 #7 #3 AND #6 ### ClinicalTrials.gov = 11 results (searched the “Other terms” field) on 9/9/2020 **Updated Search** = 12 results on 10/14/2021 (1 new result, added to the Excel library) (“breast density” OR “mammary density”) AND (mammograph* OR mammogram* OR mastrography OR “digital breast tomosynthesis” OR “x-ray breast tomosynthesis”) ## Footnotes * **Funding statement** This work was supported by Breast Cancer Research Foundation grant number (BCRF 21-028). * **Competing interests** The authors declare they have no competing interests. * **Data availability statement** Data are available upon reasonable request by contacting the corresponding author. All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information. * Typographical and editing erors were corrected. Consistency in numbers between tables and text corrected for longest duration beteween mammograms included in the individual studies, corrected to a median of 4.1 year. Largest and smallest number of cases in individual studies also corrected. * Received November 10, 2021. * Revision received November 26, 2021. * Accepted November 27, 2021. * © 2021, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) ## Literature cited 1. 1.van Ravesteyn NT, van Lier L, Schechter CB, et al. Transition from film to digital mammography: impact for breast cancer screening through the national breast and cervical cancer early detection program. Am J Prev Med 2015;48(5):535–42. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2014.11.010 [published Online First: 2015/04/22] [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.amepre.2014.11.010&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25891052&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F11%2F27%2F2021.11.10.21266200.atom) 2. 2.Oeffinger KC, Fontham ET, Etzioni R, et al. Breast Cancer Screening for Women at Average Risk: 2015 Guideline Update From the American Cancer Society. JAMA 2015;314(15):1599–614. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.12783 [published Online First: 2015/10/27] [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.2015.12783&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26501536&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F11%2F27%2F2021.11.10.21266200.atom) 3. 3.Siu A. L., U. S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for Breast Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Ann Intern Med 2016;164(4):279–96. doi: 10.7326/M15-2886 [published Online First: 2016/01/13] [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.7326/M15-2886&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26757170&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F11%2F27%2F2021.11.10.21266200.atom) 4. 4.Qaseem A, Lin JS, Mustafa RA, et al. Screening for Breast Cancer in Average-Risk Women: A Guidance Statement From the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med 2019;170(8):547–60. doi: 10.7326/M18-2147 [published Online First: 2019/04/09] [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.7326/M18-2147&link_type=DOI) 5. 5.Bevers TB, Ward JH, Arun BK, et al. Breast Cancer Risk Reduction, Version 2.2015. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2015;13(7):880–915. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NToiam5jY24iO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6ODoiMTMvNy84ODAiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMS8xMS8yNy8yMDIxLjExLjEwLjIxMjY2MjAwLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 6. 6.Louro J, Posso M, Hilton Boon M, et al. A systematic review and quality assessment of individualised breast cancer risk prediction models. Br J Cancer 2019;121(1):76–85. doi: 10.1038/s41416-019-0476-8 [published Online First: 2019/05/23] [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41416-019-0476-8&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F11%2F27%2F2021.11.10.21266200.atom) 7. 7.Boyd NF, Guo, H., Martin, L.J., Sun, L., Stone, J., Fishell, E., Jong, R.A, Hislop, G., Chiarelli, A., Minkin, S., Yaffe, M.J. Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2007;356(3):227–36. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa062790&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17229950&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F11%2F27%2F2021.11.10.21266200.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000243488100005&link_type=ISI) 8. 8.Boyd NF, Rommens JM, Vogt K, et al. Mammographic breast density as an intermediate phenotype for breast cancer. Lancet Oncol 2005;6(10):798–808. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(05)70390-9 [published Online First: 2005/10/04] [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S1470-2045(05)70390-9&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16198986&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F11%2F27%2F2021.11.10.21266200.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000232483700032&link_type=ISI) 9. 9.Salazar AS, Rakhmankulova M, Simon LE, et al. Chemoprevention Agents to Reduce Mammographic Breast Density in Premenopausal Women: A Systematic Review of Clinical Trials. JNCI Cancer Spectr 2021;5(1):pkaa125. doi: 10.1093/jncics/pkaa125 [published Online First: 2021/02/09] [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/jncics/pkaa125&link_type=DOI) 10. 10.Brentnall AR, Warren R, Harkness EF, et al. Mammographic density change in a cohort of premenopausal women receiving tamoxifen for breast cancer prevention over 5 years. Breast Cancer Res 2020;22(1):101. doi: 10.1186/s13058-020-01340-4 [published Online First: 2020/10/01] [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s13058-020-01340-4&link_type=DOI) 11. 11.Warwick J, Birke H, Stone J, et al. Mammographic breast density refines Tyrer-Cuzick estimates of breast cancer risk in high-risk women: findings from the placebo arm of the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study I. Breast Cancer Res 2014;16(5):451. doi: 10.1186/s13058-014-0451-5 [published Online First: 2014/10/09] [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s13058-014-0451-5&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25292294&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F11%2F27%2F2021.11.10.21266200.atom) 12. 12.Mokhtary A, Karakatsanis A, Valachis A. Mammographic Density Changes over Time and Breast Cancer Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cancers (Basel) 2021;13(19) doi: 10.3390/cancers13194805 [published Online First: 2021/10/14] [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3390/cancers13194805&link_type=DOI) 13. 13.Azam S, Eriksson M, Sjölander A, et al. Mammographic Density Change and Risk of Breast Cancer. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2020;112(4):391–99. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djz149 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/jnci/djz149&link_type=DOI) 14. 14.Brandt KR, Scott CG, Miglioretti DL, et al. Automated volumetric breast density measures: differential change between breasts in women with and without breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 2019;21(1):118. doi: 10.1186/s13058-019-1198-9 [published Online First: 2019/10/30] [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s13058-019-1198-9&link_type=DOI) 15. 15.Busana MC, De Stavola BL, Sovio U, et al. Assessing within-woman changes in mammographic density: a comparison of fully versus semi-automated area-based approaches. Cancer Causes and Control 2016;27(4):481–91. doi: 10.1007/s10552-016-0722-9 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s10552-016-0722-9&link_type=DOI) 16. 16.Byrne C, Ursin G, Martin CF, et al. Mammographic Density Change With Estrogen and Progestin Therapy and Breast Cancer Risk. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2017;109(9) doi: 10.1093/jnci/djx001 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/jnci/djx001&link_type=DOI) 17. 17.1. Lang KTATP Humphrey A, Harkness EF, Moschidis E, et al. Mammographic density over time in women with and without breast cancer. In: Lang KTATP, ed.: Springer Verlag, 2016:291–98. 18. 18.Kang D, Kim J-Y, Kim J-Y, et al. The relationship between breast density change during menopause and the risk of breast cancer in Korean women. Cancer Prevention Research 2021 19. 19.Kerlikowske K, Gard CC, Sprague BL, et al. One versus Two Breast Density Measures to Predict 5-and 10-Year Breast Cancer Risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2015;24(6):889–97. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-15-0035 [published Online First: 2015/04/01] [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiY2VicCI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo4OiIyNC82Lzg4OSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIxLzExLzI3LzIwMjEuMTEuMTAuMjEyNjYyMDAuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 20. 20.Kerlikowske K, Ichikawa L, Miglioretti DL, et al. Longitudinal measurement of clinical mammographic breast density to improve estimation of breast cancer risk. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2007;99(5):386–95. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djk066 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/jnci/djk066&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17341730&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F11%2F27%2F2021.11.10.21266200.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000244877900011&link_type=ISI) 21. 21.Khoo DAA, Li J, Czene K, et al. A combined segmentation and registration framework for bilateral and temporal mammogram analysis. Journal of Medical Imaging and Health Informatics 2016;6(2):380–86. doi: 10.1166/jmihi.2016.1704 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1166/jmihi.2016.1704&link_type=DOI) 22. 22.Kim EY, Chang Y, Ahn J, et al. Mammographic breast density, its changes, and breast cancer risk in premenopausal and postmenopausal women. Cancer 2020 doi: 10.1002/cncr.33138 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/cncr.33138&link_type=DOI) 23. 23.Kim S, Park B. Association between changes in mammographic density category and the risk of breast cancer: A nationwide cohort study in East-Asian women. International Journal of Cancer 2021;148(11):2674–84. doi: [https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.33455](https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.33455) 24. 24.Lokate M, Stellato RK, Veldhuis WB, et al. Age-related changes in mammographic density and breast cancer risk. American Journal of Epidemiology 2013;178(1):101–09. doi: 10.1093/aje/kws446 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/aje/kws446&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23703889&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F11%2F27%2F2021.11.10.21266200.atom) 25. 25.Maskarinec GP, I. : Lurie, G. : Kolonel, L. N. A longitudinal investigation of mammographic density: The multiethnic cohort. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention 2006;15(4):732–39. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0798 [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiY2VicCI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo4OiIxNS80LzczMiI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIxLzExLzI3LzIwMjEuMTEuMTAuMjEyNjYyMDAuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 26. 26.Roman M, Sala M, Bare M, et al. Changes in mammographic density over time and the risk of breast cancer: An observational cohort study. Breast 2019;46:108–15. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2019.04.007 [published Online First: 2019/05/28] [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.breast.2019.04.007&link_type=DOI) 27. 27.Salminen TM, Saarenmaa IE, Heikkila MM, et al. Risk of breast cancer and changes in mammographic parenchymal patterns over time. Acta Oncol 1998;37(6):547–51. doi: 10.1080/028418698430241 [published Online First: 1998/12/22] [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1080/028418698430241&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=9860312&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F11%2F27%2F2021.11.10.21266200.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000077469600005&link_type=ISI) 28. 28.Sartor H, Kontos D, Ullén S, et al. Changes in breast density over serial mammograms: A case-control study. European Journal of Radiology 2020;127 doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2020.108980 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ejrad.2020.108980&link_type=DOI) 29. 29.Tan M, Zheng B, Leader JK, et al. Association Between Changes in Mammographic Image Features and Risk for Near-Term Breast Cancer Development. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2016;35(7):1719–28. doi: 10.1109/TMI.2016.2527619 [published Online First: 2016/02/18] [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1109/TMI.2016.2527619&link_type=DOI) 30. 30.Vachon CM, Pankratz VS, Scott CG, et al. Longitudinal trends in mammographic percent density and breast cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2007;16(5):921–8. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-06-1047 [published Online First: 2007/05/18] [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiY2VicCI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo4OiIxNi81LzkyMSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIxLzExLzI3LzIwMjEuMTEuMTAuMjEyNjYyMDAuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 31. 31.Van Gils CH, Hendriks JHCL, Holland R, et al. Changes in mammographic breast density and concomitant changes in breast cancer risk. European Journal of Cancer Prevention 1999;8(6):509–15. doi: 10.1097/00008469-199912000-00006 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/00008469-199912000-00006&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10643940&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F11%2F27%2F2021.11.10.21266200.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000084407800006&link_type=ISI) 32. 32.Work MER, L. L. : Quante, A.S. : Crew, K. D. : Whiffen, A. : Terry, M. B. Changes in mammographic density over time in breast cancer cases and women at high risk for breast cancer. International Journal of Cancer 2014;135(7):1740–44. doi: 10.1002/ijc.28825 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/ijc.28825&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24599445&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F11%2F27%2F2021.11.10.21266200.atom) 33. 33.Eriksson M, Li J, Leifland K, et al. A comprehensive tool for measuring mammographic density changes over time. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2018;169(2):371–79. doi: 10.1007/s10549-018-4690-5 [published Online First: 2018/02/03] [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s10549-018-4690-5&link_type=DOI) 34. 34.Krishnan K, Baglietto L, Stone J, et al. Longitudinal Study of Mammographic Density Measures That Predict Breast Cancer Risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2017;26(4):651–60. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-16-0499 [published Online First: 2017/01/08] [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiY2VicCI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo4OiIyNi80LzY1MSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIxLzExLzI3LzIwMjEuMTEuMTAuMjEyNjYyMDAuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 35. 35.Burton A, Maskarinec G, Perez-Gomez B, et al. Mammographic density and ageing: A collaborative pooled analysis of cross-sectional data from 22 countries worldwide. PLoS Med 2017;14(6):e1002335. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002335 [published Online First: 2017/07/01] [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002335&link_type=DOI) 36. 36.Ying GS, Maguire MG, Glynn RJ, et al. Tutorial on Biostatistics: Longitudinal Analysis of Correlated Continuous Eye Data. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2021;28(1):3–20. doi: 10.1080/09286586.2020.1786590 [published Online First: 2020/08/04] [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1080/09286586.2020.1786590&link_type=DOI) 37. 37.Visvanathan K, Fabian CJ, Bantug E, et al. Use of Endocrine Therapy for Breast Cancer Risk Reduction: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol 2019;37(33):3152–65. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.01472 [published Online First: 2019/09/04] [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1200/JCO.19.01472&link_type=DOI) 38. 38.Pashayan N, Morris S, Gilbert FJ, et al. Cost-effectiveness and Benefit-to-Harm Ratio of Risk-Stratified Screening for Breast Cancer: A Life-Table Model. JAMA Oncol 2018;4(11):1504–10. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.1901 [published Online First: 2018/07/07] [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.1901&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=29978189&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F11%2F27%2F2021.11.10.21266200.atom) 39. 39.Britt KL, Cuzick J, Phillips KA. Key steps for effective breast cancer prevention. Nat Rev Cancer 2020;20(8):417–36. doi: 10.1038/s41568-020-0266-x [published Online First: 2020/06/13] [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41568-020-0266-x&link_type=DOI) 40. 40.Serrano MJ, Garrido-Navas MC, Diaz Mochon JJ, et al. Precision Prevention and Cancer Interception: The New Challenges of Liquid Biopsy. Cancer Discov 2020;10(11):1635–44. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-20-0466 [published Online First: 2020/10/11] [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiY2FuZGlzYyI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMDoiMTAvMTEvMTYzNSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIxLzExLzI3LzIwMjEuMTEuMTAuMjEyNjYyMDAuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 41. 41.Vineis P, Wild CP. The science of precision prevention of cancer. Lancet Oncol 2017;18(8):997–98. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30331-5 [published Online First: 2017/08/02] [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30331-5&link_type=DOI) 42. 42.Kerlikowske K, Bibbins-Domingo K. Toward Risk-Based Breast Cancer Screening. Ann Intern Med 2021;174(5):710–11. doi: 10.7326/M21-0398 [published Online First: 2021/02/09] [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.7326/M21-0398&link_type=DOI) 43. 43.Pace LE, Keating NL. Should Women at Lower-Than-Average Risk of Breast Cancer Undergo Less Frequent Screening? J Natl Cancer Inst 2021;113(8):953–54. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djaa219 [published Online First: 2021/01/31] [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/jnci/djaa219&link_type=DOI) 44. 44.Brooks JD, Nabi HH, Andrulis IL, et al. Personalized Risk Assessment for Prevention and Early Detection of Breast Cancer: Integration and Implementation (PERSPECTIVE I&I). J Pers Med 2021;11(6) doi: 10.3390/jpm11060511 [published Online First: 2021/07/03] [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3390/jpm11060511&link_type=DOI)