• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
DB-I Logo

DenseBreast-info, Inc.

Get Smart About Being Dense

HOME/USA

EUROPE

Español

  • Home
  • For Patients
    • Patients Home
    • Dense Breasts: 5 Facts You Should Know
    • Is My Mammogram Enough?
    • Screening Tests After a Mammogram (Table)
    • Let’s Talk About Dense Breasts, Video Series
    • Patient Questions and Answers
    • Patient Resources by Language
    • Print: Patient Fact Sheet
    • Print: Patient Brochure
  • For Providers
    • Providers Home
    • CME/CE: “Dense Breasts, Risk, and Supplemental Screening”
    • Flow Chart: Who Needs More Screening?
    • Health Care Provider FAQs
    • Risk Model Tutorial
    • Table: Mammography Guideline Comparison
    • Table: Dense Breast Screening Guidelines
    • Table: High/Increased-Risk Screening Guidelines
    • DBI Research
    • Patient Resources
  • Screening Technologies
    • Screening Technologies Home
    • For Patients: Screening Tests After a Mammogram (Table)
    • For Providers: Cancer Detection by Screening Method (Table)
    • 2D/3D Mammography
    • Mammography AI Screening Tools, Comparative Tables
    • Breast Ultrasound (Sonogram)
    • Breast MRI
    • Contrast-Enhanced Mammography (CEM)
    • Molecular Breast Imaging
    • DBI Research
  • Inform/Insurance Laws
    • Inform/Insurance Laws Home
    • Inform: Federal FDA Dense Breast Reporting
    • Insurance
      • State Law Insurance Map and Federal HRSA Guidelines
      • State Law Insurance Table
      • Federal Insurance Bill: Find It Early Act
  • Blog & Press
  • About Us
    • About Us Home
    • Our Mission
    • World Dense Breast Day
    • Our Team
    • DBI Research
    • Let’s Talk About Dense Breasts, Video Series
    • Patient Resources
    • Contact Us
    • Please Donate
  • Our Corporate and Health Group Supporters
  • Home/Europe
  • European Patients
    • Patients Home
    • Dense Breasts: 5 Facts You Should Know
    • Is My Mammogram Enough?
    • Screening Tests After a Mammogram (Table)
    • Let’s Talk About Dense Breasts, Video Series
    • Europe Patient Questions and Answers
    • Patient Resources by Language
  • European Providers
    • Providers Home
    • CME/CE: “Dense Breasts, Risk, and Supplemental Screening”
    • Density Primer
    • Screening Flow Chart
    • Table: Dense Breast Screening Guidelines
    • Table: High/Increased-Risk, Dense Breast Screening Guidelines
    • Health Care Provider FAQs
    • Risk Model Tutorial
    • DBI Research
    • Article: Density Implications/Screening
    • Article: Education/Access to Screening
  • Screening Technologies
    • Screening Technologies Home
    • For Patients: Screening Tests After a Mammogram (Table)
    • For Providers: Cancer Detection by Screening Method (Table)
    • 2D/3D Mammography
    • Mammography AI Screening Tools, Comparative Tables
    • Breast Ultrasound (Sonogram)
    • Breast MRI
    • Contrast-Enhanced Mammography (CEM)
    • Molecular Breast Imaging
    • DBI Research
  • Country/Screening Guidelines
    • Screening Guidelines Home
    • Map: Screening Guidelines by Country
    • Table: Country Comparative Analysis
  • Blog & Press
  • About Us
    • About Us Home
    • Our Mission
    • Our Team
    • World Dense Breast Day
    • DBI Research
    • Our Corporate and Health Group Supporters
    • Let’s Talk About Dense Breasts, Video Series
    • Patient Resources by Language
    • Contact Us
    • Please Donate
  • European Educators

Risk Model Tutorial

Health Care Provider: Risk Models For Breast Cancer, A Primer

The American College of Radiology (ACR) [1] recommends all women, but especially Black women and women of Ashkenazi Jewish descent, undergo risk assessment and possible genetic testing by age 25 to identify those at higher risk who can then be counseled to begin earlier and more aggressive screening for breast cancer.

Risk assessment can be performed by use of risk models, artificial intelligence applied to mammograms, and/or genetic testing.

1. How are the risk models used?

1. To identify women who may benefit from risk-reducing medications
The Gail model is used to determine risk for purposes of advising on use of medications to reduce risk. In the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) P1 study [2], women at increased risk for breast cancer were defined as follows: 1) age 35 to 59 years with at least a 1.66% five-year risk for developing breast cancer by the Gail model; or 2) personal history of lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS); or 3) age over 60 years. 13,388 such women were randomized to receive tamoxifen or placebo daily for five years. Tamoxifen reduced the risk of invasive breast cancer by 49% and reduced the risk of noninvasive cancer by 50%.

The reduced risk of breast cancer was only seen for estrogen-receptor expressing tumors. There was a 2.5-fold increase in risk of endometrial cancer in women taking tamoxifen and a decrease in hip and spine fracture risk. Blood clots causing stroke and deep vein thrombosis are increased in women taking tamoxifen [3, 4].

2. To identify women who may carry a pathogenic (disease-causing) variant (mutation) in BRCA1or BRCA2
Some models (e.g. Tyrer-Cuzick [IBIS], Penn II, BOADICEA, BRCAPRO) estimate the probability of a pathogenic/likely pathogenic BRCA1/2 variant; however, most genetic testing guidelines are now criterion based (e.g. NCCN) as opposed to probability based. In practical terms, clinical decision-making around genetic testing is rarely based on a priori probabilities.

3. To identify women who meet criteria for elevated-risk screening MRI
Breast density increases the risk for developing breast cancer and also increases the risk of cancer going unseen on a mammogram.  Compared to women with scattered fibroglandular density, which is not considered dense and is most common over the age of 50, individuals with heterogeneously dense breasts have about a 1.5-fold greater risk of developing breast cancer while those with extremely dense breasts have about a 2-fold greater risk [5].  Visual (BI-RADS) breast density assessed by the radiologist, or quantified by software is included in many of the models of breast cancer risk.

Women with an estimated lifetime risk (LTR) of breast cancer of 20% or greater are considered “high risk” and are recommended to have annual screening MRI. Starting age varies according to different guidelines [1, 6-8] but may be as early as age 25-30 [1]. To estimate lifetime risk for purposes of supplemental MRI screening, one can use any model that predicts risk of a disease-causing mutation, such as: the Tyrer-Cuzick (IBIS), BOADICEA/CanRisk, or BRCAPRO models; or the Claus model can be used. Lifetime risk decreases with increasing age, and it is unusual for women over age 70 to be considered “high risk”. The Gail model should NOT be used, as it only collects limited family history and does not include breast density. The BCSC Invasive Breast Cancer Risk Calculator provides 5- and 10-year risk, for which there is currently no MRI screening guideline. Validated artificial intelligence (AI) based risk assessment such as Mia, Mirai, iCAD, or Transpara may also be used.

Other women at elevated risk are also recommended for screening MRI, including those with known pathogenic variants.

References Cited

1. Monticciolo DL, Newell MS, Moy L, Lee CS, Destounis SV. Breast Cancer Screening for Women at Higher-Than-Average Risk: Updated Recommendations From the ACR. J Am Coll Radiol. 2023 Sep;20(9):902-914

2. Fisher B, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, et al. Tamoxifen for prevention of breast cancer: Report of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 Study.J Natl Cancer Inst1998; 90:1371-1388

3. Hernandez RK, Sorensen HT, Pedersen L, Jacobsen J, Lash TL. Tamoxifen treatment and risk of deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism: A Danish population-based cohort study.Cancer2009; 115:4442-4449

4. Fisher B, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, et al. Tamoxifen for the prevention of breast cancer: Current status of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 study.J Natl Cancer Inst2005; 97:1652-1662>

5. McCormack VA, dos Santos Silva I. Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006;15(6):1159-69.

6. Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin2007; 57:75-89

7. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines). Breast cancer screening and diagnosis v.2.2024. Available at https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast-screening.pdf

8. Marcon M, Fuchsjäger MH, Clauser P, Mann RM. ESR Essentials: screening for breast cancer – general recommendations by EUSOBI. Eur Radiol. 2024 Oct;34(10):6348-6357.

2. Risk model explanations

The Risk Models Table that follows features details and live links to several commonly utilized breast cancer risk assessment models.

Models that do include breast density in risk calculations:

  • Tyrer-Cuzick Model (IBIS) version 8 update was based in part on input from Dr. Jennifer Harvey and Dr. Martin Yaffe and includes breast density. In this model, breast density is one of the top five factors determining breast cancer risk. This model is the most comprehensive and tends to be the most accurate at predicting risk at the population level.
  • Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) model [1] is a modification of the Gail model and was developed and validated in a large, ethnically diverse, prospective cohort of women undergoing screening mammography. It includes the risk factors with the greatest population attributable risks for breast cancer, including age, breast density, family history, history of a breast biopsy, and a polygenic risk score (PRS) based on common genetic variations [2].
  • Artificial Intelligence (AI) is being used to identify textural and other findings beyond breast density on mammograms that predict increased risk; such information is complementary to the Tyrer-Cuzick model (v.8) [3].
    • A recent study of a mammography-based deep learning model developed at Massachusetts General Hospital called Mirai more accurately identified high-risk patients than the Tyrer-Cuzick v8 risk model and prior deep learning models. Mirai identified 41.5% of women developing breast cancer in the next five years as high-risk, compared to only 22.9% with the Tyrer-Cuzick model v8. Mirai performed similarly across all density categories [4].  Addition of family history or mutation status did not further improve on performance of AI alone.
    • In a study from the Karolinska Institutet [5], use of AI to identify mammographic microcalcifications and masses, even if not the site of actual malignancy, and differences between right and left breasts,  successfully predicted women who would develop interval or advanced cancer in the two years after a normal mammogram and improved short-term (2-to-3-year) risk assessment over Tyrer-Cuzick (v.7) or Gail models [6]. This model proved more accurate than traditional risk models and can augment genetic/family history to help identify women who should and, importantly, who should not, have supplemental screening after 2D mammography.

Models that do not include breast density in risk calculations:

  • Gail [7]
  • Penn II
  • Claus [8]

References Cited

1. Tice JA, Cummings SR, Smith-Bindman R, Ichikawa L, Barlow WE, Kerlikowske K. Using clinical factors and mammographic breast density to estimate breast cancer risk: Development and validation of a new predictive model. Ann Intern Med 2008; 148:337-347

2. Vachon CM, Pankratz VS, Scott CG, et al. The contributions of breast density and common genetic variation to breast cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst 2015; 107

3. Yala A, Lehman C, Schuster T, Portnoi T, Barzilay R. A deep learning mammography-based model for improved breast cancer risk prediction. Radiology 2019:182716

4. Yala A, Mikhael PG, Strand F, et al. Toward robust mammography-based models for breast cancer risk. Sci Transl Med. 2021;13(578):eaba4373. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aba4373

5. Eriksson M, Czene K, Strand F, Zackrisson S, Lindholm P, Lång K, Förnvik D, Sartor H, Mavaddat N, Easton D, Hall P. Identification of Women at High Risk of Breast Cancer Who Need Supplemental Screening. Radiology. 2020 Sep 8:201620. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020201620. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 32897160.

6. Eriksson M, Czene K, Pawitan Y, Leifland K, Darabi H, Hall P. A clinical model for identifying the short-term risk of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 2017; 19:29

7. Gail MH, Brinton LA, Byar DP, et al. Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst 1989; 81:1879-1886

8. Claus EB, Risch N, Thompson WD. Autosomal dominant inheritance of early-onset breast cancer: Implications for risk prediction. Cancer 1994; 73:643-651

3. Diagnostic considerations

Risk models and diagnostic considerations:

  • Any particular risk model will not include all known risk factors
  • Estimated risk can vary substantially between models
  • Age: As a woman gets older, her 5- and 10-year risk of developing breast cancer increase, but her lifetime risk decreases
  • Risks change every year and should be periodically reassessed. For example, risk changes with age (see above), family history may change if family members have been diagnosed with breast or ovarian cancer, or a breast biopsy may have been performed.

Risk model limitations:

  • Adoption (or otherwise unknown family history)
  • Small family size
  • All models underestimate rates of breast cancer. At best they identify about 70% of women who will develop cancer at the population level.
  • All models are low in accuracy at the individual level (“discrimination”)
  • Risk models have been largely developed and validated in populations of white European ancestry and may not perform equally in other ethnic populations

Polygenic risk score for improvement in model performance:
Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs, informally, “snips”) are variations that occur normally throughout the DNA. Individually, their impact on breast cancer risk is small; however, when combined to create a “polygenic risk score” (PRS) or “SNP score”, some of these variations increase the risk of breast cancer. Including PRS with classical risk factors used in current risk models may improve accuracy of risk assessment [1-4]. Measurement of PRS is not yet widely available.

Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based risk assessment:
Mammography-based features beyond breast density identified from deep learning models [5, 6] and iCAD software [7, 8] have been used in combination with traditional risk factors to improve risk prediction. More recently a model was developed and validated in a U.S. multiethnic cohort to estimate risks using tomosynthesis imaging features and age to help identify women who would be diagnosed with an interval cancer or a cancer at the next screen after negative or benign tomosynthesis screen [9]. These approaches can help better identify women who should and, importantly, who should not, have supplemental screening after 2D mammography or tomosynthesis. AI can also help triage mammograms more likely to be normal, allowing radiologists to focus greater attention on those more likely to have cancer.

AI is also being used with breast ultrasound.  AI-based decision support performs similar to breast imaging specialists [10] and has been shown to improve accuracy of sonographic breast lesion assessment among nonspecialists [11]. AI can reduce false positives on ultrasound [12].

See NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines entitled “Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, Pancreatic, and Prostate” for genetic testing indications [13].

Women who have an estimated lifetime risk (LTR) of 20% or more by models that predict mutation carrier status (e.g., Tyrer-Cuzick (IBIS), Penn II, BOADICEA, BRACAPRO), or the Claus model, are recommended to have annual MRI screening (to include mammography after age 30). The Gail model should not be used for MRI screening purposes, as it includes very limited family history.

In women recommended for MRI but unable to access or tolerate it, consider contrast-enhanced mammography or supplemental ultrasound screening [14].

References Cited

1. Shieh Y, Hu D, Ma L, et al. Breast cancer risk prediction using a clinical risk model and polygenic risk score.Breast Cancer Res Treat2016;159(3):513–525.

2. Vachon CM, Pankratz VS, Scott CG, et al. The contributions of breast density and common genetic variation to breast cancer risk.J Natl Cancer Inst2015;107(5). doi: 10.1093/jnci/dju397.

3. Zhang X, Rice M, Tworoger SS, et al. Addition of a polygenic risk score, mammographic density, and endogenous hormones to existing breast cancer risk prediction models: a nested case- control study.PLoS Med2018;15(9):e1002644.

4. Yang Y, Tao R, Shu X, et al. Incorporating polygenic risk scores and nongenetic risk factors for breast cancer risk prediction among Asian women.JAMA Netw Open2022;5(3):e2149030. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.49030.

5. Yala A, Mikhael PG, Strand F, Lin G, Smith K, Wan YL, et al. Toward robust mammography-based models for breast cancer risk.Sci Transl Med. 2021;13(578):eaba4373. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aba4373.

6. Eriksson M, Conant EF, Kontos D, Hall P. Risk Assessment in Population-Based Breast Cancer Screening.J Clin Oncol2022;40:2279-2280

7. Eriksson M, Czene K, Strand F, Zackrisson S, Lindholm P, Lång K, et al. Identification of Women at High Risk of Breast Cancer Who Need Supplemental Screening.Radiology. 2020;297(2):327-333. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020201620. Epub 2020 Sep 8.

8. Eriksson M, Czene K, Pawitan Y, Leifland K, Darabi H, Hall P. A clinical model for identifying the short-term risk of breast cancer.Breast Cancer Res. 2017;19(1):29. doi: 10.1186/s13058-017-0820-y.

9. Eriksson M, Destounis S, Czene K, et al. A risk model for digital breast tomosynthesis to predict breast cancer and guide clinical care.Sci Transl Med2022; 14:eabn3971

10. Berg, WA, Gur D, Bandos AI, et al. Impact of Original and Artificially Improved Artificial Intelligence–based Computer-aided Diagnosis on Breast US Interpretation,Journal of Breast Imaging2021;3(3):301–311. doi: 10.1093/jbi/wbab013

11. Mango VL, Sun M, Wynn RT, Ha R. Should We Ignore, Follow, or Biopsy? Impact of Artificial Intelligence Decision Support on Breast Ultrasound Lesion Assessment.AJR Am J Roentgenol.2020;214(6):1445-1452. doi: 10.2214/AJR.19.21872. Epub 2020 Apr 22. Erratum in: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2020;215(1):262.

12. Shen Y, Shamout FE, Oliver JR, et al. Artificial intelligence system reduces false-positive findings in the interpretation of breast ultrasound exams.Nat Commun2021;12(1):5645. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-26023-2.

13. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines). Genetic/ familial high-risk assessment: breast, ovarian, pancreatic, prostate. v.2.2025—November 7, 2024. Available at: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/genetics_bopp.pdf

14. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines). Breast cancer screening and diagnosis v.2.2024. Available at https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast-screening.pdf

4. Risk Models Table (includes live links)

MODEL/LINK PROVIDES OUTPUT INCLUDES WHEN TO USE
Models that DO include breast density as a risk factor
Tyrer-Cuzick (IBIS)
Version 8
Personal risk and risk of mutation carrier 10-year* and lifetime risk (LTR) of developing breast cancer Current age, age at menarche, height, weight, parity, age of first childbirth, age at menopause, HRT use, pathology results from prior benign or atypical breast biopsies, ovarian cancer, breast density (BI-RADS®, Volpara density, or Visual Analog Scale), Ashkenazi descent, age at diagnosis of first- and second-degree female relatives with breast or ovarian cancer and male relatives with breast cancer 20% lifetime risk threshold for MRI screening; 10% lifetime risk threshold for genetic testing
Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC)

App Link

Personal risk 5-year and 10-year risk of developing invasive breast cancer Current age, race/ethnicity, BI-RADS® breast density, first-degree relative, pathology results from prior benign or atypical breast biopsies Risk assessment for use of medications for prevention (tamoxifen, raloxifene, aromatase inhibitors)
Models that DO NOT include breast density as a risk factor
Gail Personal risk 5-year and LTR of developing breast cancer Current age, age at menarche, age at first live birth childbirth, number of first-degree relatives (mother, sisters, daughters) with breast cancer, prior benign biopsies, prior atypical biopsy and race/ethnicity.

DOES NOT INCLUDE: Age of diagnosis of relatives; not to be used to assess “high-risk” criteria for MRI screening

1.7% 5-year risk threshold when considering tamoxifen or other risk-reducing medications or to start annual tomosynthesis beginning at age 35

NOT to be used for risk assessment for purposes of screening MRI nor for genetic testing

Penn II Personal risk and risk of mutation carrier LTR risk of developing breast cancer Ashkenazi descent, number of women in family diagnosed with both breast and ovarian cancer, number of women in family diagnosed with ovarian or fallopian cancer in absence of breast cancer, number of breast cancer cases in family diagnosed < age 50, age of youngest breast cancer case in family; number of people in family with: presence of mother-daughter diagnosed with bilateral breast cancer, male breast cancer diagnosis, presence of pancreatic cancer or prostate cancer 20% lifetime risk threshold for MRI screening; 10% lifetime risk threshold for genetic testing
Claus Personal risk LTR of developing breast cancer Occurrence(s) of breast cancer in first-degree and second-degree female relative(s) by decade age of diagnosis 20% lifetime risk threshold for MRI screening

© DenseBreast-info.org

*10-year risk by Tyrer-Cuzick model can be divided by two to estimate 5-year risk (personal communication, Jack Cuzick, PhD, 6/10/20)

DenseBreast‑info, Inc. is an independent, nonprofit organization. DBI is not affiliated with or endorsed by other organizations unless expressly identified. If you have questions about DBI’s programs or partnerships, please contact us.

© Unpublished, DenseBreast-info, Inc. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED | 501(c)(3) Public Charity

  • Online Privacy Policy
  • Online Terms of Use & Disclaimers

This website is for informational purposes only and is not intended to be a substitute for medical advice from a physician or to create a standard of care for health care providers. In addition, information has been provided by independent third parties and may not represent the views of DenseBreast-info.org. Please check with a physician regarding your specific condition, if you have any questions, or need a diagnosis. If you are experiencing an urgent medical condition, call your local emergency services [e.g., 9-1-1 (in the USA) or 1-1-2 (in Europe)].