The role of the physical microenvironment in tumor development, progression, metastasis, and treatment is gaining appreciation. The emerging multidisciplinary field of the physical sciences of cancer is now embraced by engineers, physicists, cell biologists, developmental biologists, tumor biologists, and oncologists attempting to understand how physical parameters and processes affect cancer progression and treatment. Discoveries in this field are starting to be translated into new therapeutic strategies for cancer. In this Review, we propose four physical traits of tumors that contribute to tumor progression and treatment resistance: (i) elevated solid stresses (compression and tension), (ii) elevated interstitial fluid pressure, (iii) altered material properties (for example, increased tissue stiffness, which historically has been used to detect cancer by palpation), and (iv) altered physical microarchitecture. After defining these physical traits, we discuss their causes, consequences, and how they complement the biological hallmarks of cancer.

Physical traits of cancer.

Abstract Breast density is an independent risk factor for the development of breast cancer and also decreases the sensitivity of mammography for screening. Consequently, women with extremely dense breasts face an increased risk of late diagnosis of breast cancer. These women are, therefore, underserved with current mammographic screening programs. The results of recent studies reporting on contrast-enhanced breast MRI as a screening method in women with extremely dense breasts provide compelling evidence that this approach can enable an important reduction in breast cancer mortality for these women and is cost-effective. Because there is now a valid option to improve breast cancer screening, the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) recommends that women should be informed about their breast density. EUSOBI thus calls on all providers of mammography screening to share density information with the women being screened. In light of the available evidence, in women aged 50 to 70 years with extremely dense breasts, the EUSOBI now recommends offering screening breast MRI every 2 to 4 years. The EUSOBI acknowledges that it may currently not be possible to offer breast MRI immediately and everywhere and underscores that quality assurance procedures need to be established, but urges radiological societies and policymakers to act on this now. Since the wishes and values of individual women differ, in screening the principles of shared decision-making should be embraced. In particular, women should be counselled on the benefits and risks of mammography and MRI-based screening, so that they are capable of making an informed choice about their preferred screening method. Key Points • The recommendations in Figure 1 summarize the key points of the manuscript 

/pdf/breast-cancer-screening-in-women-with-extremely-dense-1eexjvs9.pdf

Breast cancer screening in women with extremely dense breasts recommendations of the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI)

Improved breast cancer risk models enable targeted screening strategies that achieve earlier detection and less screening harm than existing guidelines. To bring deep learning risk models to clinical practice, we need to further refine their accuracy, validate them across diverse populations, and demonstrate their potential to improve clinical workflows. We developed Mirai, a mammography-based deep learning model designed to predict risk at multiple timepoints, leverage potentially missing risk factor information, and produce predictions that are consistent across mammography machines. Mirai was trained on a large dataset from Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in the United States and tested on held-out test sets from MGH, Karolinska University Hospital in Sweden, and Chang Gung Memorial Hospital (CGMH) in Taiwan, obtaining C-indices of 0.76 (95% confidence interval, 0.74 to 0.80), 0.81 (0.79 to 0.82), and 0.79 (0.79 to 0.83), respectively. Mirai obtained significantly higher 5-year ROC AUCs than the Tyrer-Cuzick model ( P < 0.001) and prior deep learning models Hybrid DL ( P < 0.001) and Image-Only DL ( P < 0.001), trained on the same dataset. Mirai more accurately identified high-risk patients than prior methods across all datasets. On the MGH test set, 41.5% (34.4 to 48.5) of patients who would develop cancer within 5 years were identified as high risk, compared with 36.1% (29.1 to 42.9) by Hybrid DL ( P = 0.02) and 22.9% (15.9 to 29.6) by the Tyrer-Cuzick model ( P < 0.001).

Toward robust mammography-based models for breast cancer risk.

Importance Digital mammography (DM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) are used for routine breast cancer screening. There is minimal evidence on performance outcomes by age, screening round, and breast density in community practice. Objective To compare DM vs DBT performance by age, baseline vs subsequent screening round, and breast density category. Design, Setting, and Participants This comparative effectiveness study assessed 1 584 079 screening examinations of women aged 40 to 79 years without prior history of breast cancer, mastectomy, or breast augmentation undergoing screening mammography at 46 participating Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium facilities from January 2010 to April 2018. Exposures Age, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System breast density category, screening round, and modality. Main Outcomes and Measures Absolute rates and relative risks (RRs) of screening recall and cancer detection. Results Of 1 273 492 DM and 310 587 DBT examinations analyzed, 1 028 891 examinations (65.0%) were of white non-Hispanic women; 399 952 women (25.2%) were younger than 50 years; and 671 136 women (42.4%) had heterogeneously dense or extremely dense breasts. Adjusted differences in DM vs DBT performance were largest on baseline examinations: for example, per 1000 baseline examinations in women ages 50 to 59, recall rates decreased from 241 examinations for DM to 204 examinations for DBT (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73-0.98), and cancer detection rates increased from 5.9 with DM to 8.8 with DBT (RR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.10-2.08). On subsequent examinations, women aged 40 to 79 years with heterogeneously dense breasts had improved recall rates and improved cancer detection with DBT. For example, per 1000 examinations in women aged 50 to 59 years, the number of recall examinations decreased from 102 with DM to 93 with DBT (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84-0.98), and cancer detection increased from 3.7 with DM to 5.3 with DBT (RR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.23-1.64). Women aged 50 to 79 years with scattered fibroglandular density also had improved recall and cancer detection rates with DBT. Women aged 40 to 49 years with scattered fibroglandular density and women aged 50 to 79 years with almost entirely fatty breasts benefited from improved recall rates without change in cancer detection rates. No improvements in recall or cancer detection rates were observed in women with extremely dense breasts on subsequent examinations for any age group. Conclusions and Relevance This study found that improvements in recall and cancer detection rates with DBT were greatest on baseline mammograms. On subsequent screening mammograms, the benefits of DBT varied by age and breast density. Women with extremely dense breasts did not benefit from improved recall or cancer detection with DBT on subsequent screening rounds.

/pdf/screening-performance-of-digital-breast-tomosynthesis-vs-1mvn884hj0.pdf

Screening Performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography in Community Practice by Patient Age, Screening Round, and Breast Density.

PURPOSEAccurate 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 ela...

Multi-Institutional Validation of a Mammography-Based Breast Cancer Risk Model.

Background: Extremely dense breast tissue is a risk factor for breast cancer and limits the detection of cancer with mammography. Data are needed on the use of supplemental magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to improve early detection and reduce interval breast cancers in such patients. Methods: In this multicenter, randomized, controlled trial in the Netherlands, we assigned 40,373 women between the ages of 50 and 75 years with extremely dense breast tissue and normal results on screening mammography to a group that was invited to undergo supplemental MRI or to a group that received mammography screening only. The groups were assigned in a 1:4 ratio, with 8061 in the MRI-invitation group and 32,312 in the mammography-only group. The primary outcome was the between-group difference in the incidence of interval cancers during a 2-year screening period. Results: The interval-cancer rate was 2.5 per 1000 screenings in the MRI-invitation group and 5.0 per 1000 screenings in the mammography-only group, for a difference of 2.5 per 1000 screenings (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0 to 3.7; P<0.001). Of the women who were invited to undergo MRI, 59% accepted the invitation. Of the 20 interval cancers that were diagnosed in the MRI-invitation group, 4 were diagnosed in the women who actually underwent MRI (0.8 per 1000 screenings) and 16 in those who did not accept the invitation (4.9 per 1000 screenings). The MRI cancer-detection rate among the women who actually underwent MRI screening was 16.5 per 1000 screenings (95% CI, 13.3 to 20.5). The positive predictive value was 17.4% (95% CI, 14.2 to 21.2) for recall for additional testing and 26.3% (95% CI, 21.7 to 31.6) for biopsy. The false positive rate was 79.8 per 1000 screenings. Among the women who underwent MRI, 0.1% had either an adverse event or a serious adverse event during or immediately after the screening. Conclusions: The use of supplemental MRI screening in women with extremely dense breast tissue and normal results on mammography resulted in the diagnosis of significantly fewer interval cancers than mammography alone during a 2-year screening period. (Funded by the University Medical Center Utrecht and others.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa1903986/suppl_file/nejmoa1903986_appendix.pdf

Matthijn D.F. de Jong

Papers

Supplemental MRI Screening for Women with Extremely Dense Breast Tissue