Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41004699›Full record

ArticleJCO precision oncology2025

Incorporating Continuous Mammographic Density Into the BOADICEA Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Model.

Lorenzo Ficorella, Mikael Eriksson, Kamila Czene, Goska Leslie, Xin Yang, Tim Carver, Adam E Stokes, Douglas F Easton, Per Hall, Antonis C Antoniou

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JCO precision oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Lorenzo FicorellaCentre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0577-1571
Mikael ErikssonCentre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8135-4270
Kamila CzeneDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Goska LeslieCentre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-5756-6222
Xin YangCentre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0037-3790
Tim CarverCentre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1508-3091
Adam E StokesCentre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0009-0006-7310-0338
Douglas F EastonCentre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2444-3247
Per HallDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-5640-9126
Antonis C AntoniouCentre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9223-3116

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeBreast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA v7) predicts future breast cancer (BC) risk using data on cancer family history (FH), genetic markers, questionnaire-based risk factors, and mammographic density (MD) measured using the four-category Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS) classification. However, BIRADS requires manual reading, which is impractical on a large scale and may cause information loss. We extended BOADICEA to incorporate continuous MD measurements, calculated using the automated Volpara and STRATUS tools.

methodsWe used data from the Karolinska Mammography Project for Risk Prediction of Breast Cancer cohort (60,276 participants; 1,167 incident BC). Associations between MD measurements and BC risk were estimated in a randomly selected training subset (two thirds of the data set). Percent MD residuals were calculated after regressing on age at mammography and BMI. Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for FH and BOADICEA risk factors, and were incorporated into BOADICEA. The remaining one third of the cohort was used to assess the performance of the extended BOADICEA (v7.2) in predicting 5-year risks.

resultsThe BC HRs per standard deviation of residual STRATUS density were estimated to be 1.48 (95% CI, 1.33 to 1.64) and 1.41 (95% CI, 1.27 to 1.56) for pre- and postmenopausal women, respectively. The corresponding estimates for Volpara density were 1.27 (95% CI, 1.15 to 1.40) and 1.38 (95% CI, 1.25 to 1.54). The extended BOADICEA showed improved discrimination in the testing data set over using BIRADS, with a 1%-4% increase in AUC across different combinations of risk factors. On the basis of 5-year BC risk with MD as the sole input, approximately 11% of the women were reclassified into lower risk categories and 18% into higher risk categories using the extended model.

conclusionIncorporating continuous MD measurements into BOADICEA enhances BC risk stratification and facilitates the use of automated MD measures for risk prediction.

Indexed as

Breast DensityBreast NeoplasmsMammographyAdultAgedAlgorithmsCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMiddle AgedProportional Hazards ModelsRisk AssessmentRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID41004699
PMCPMC12502952

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.