IntroductionMammographic breast density is one of the strongest known risk factors for breast cancer. We present a novel technique for estimating breast density based on 3D T1-weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and evaluate its performance, including for breast cancer risk prediction, relative to two standard mammographic density-estimation methods.MethodsThe analyses were based on MRI (n = 655) and mammography (n = 607) images obtained in the course of the UK multicentre magnetic resonance imaging breast screening (MARIBS) study of asymptomatic women aged 31 to 49 years who were at high genetic risk of breast cancer. The MRI percent and absolute dense volumes were estimated using our novel algorithm (MRIBview) while mammographic percent and absolute dense area were estimated using the Cumulus thresholding algorithm and also using a 21-point Visual Assessment scale for one medio-lateral oblique image per woman. We assessed the relationships of the MRI and mammographic measures to one another, to standard anthropometric and hormonal factors, to BRCA1/2 genetic status, and to breast cancer risk (60 cases) using linear and Poisson regression.ResultsMRI percent dense volume is well correlated with mammographic percent dense area (R = 0.76) but overall gives estimates 8.1 percentage points lower (P < 0.0001). Both show strong associations with established anthropometric and hormonal factors. Mammographic percent dense area, and to a lesser extent MRI percent dense volume were lower in BRCA1 carriers (P = 0.001, P = 0.010 respectively) but there was no association with BRCA2 carrier status. The study was underpowered to detect expected associations between percent density and breast cancer, but women with absolute MRI dense volume in the upper half of the distribution had double the risk of those in the lower half (P = 0.009).ConclusionsThe MRIBview estimates of volumetric breast density are highly correlated with mammographic dense area but are not equivalent measures; the MRI absolute dense volume shows potential as a predictor of breast cancer risk that merits further investigation.

Differences in reported uptake of genetic testing for mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 can largely be accounted for by different methodologies and by studying research vs nonresearch families. In our joint study of 75 nonresearch families from two UK centres in which at least 3 years had elapsed since the initial proband had been informed of the availability of testing, only 45 and 34% of eligible individuals from Manchester and London, respectively, had come forward for counselling. Final uptake rates using a nonproactive approach were 53 and 29% for women and 11-12% for men, but the figure among those attending clinic was 73 and 62%, respectively. Unlike previous studies, we did not find that uptake had stabilised after a year with 25% of those being tested more than 2 years after the family was informed, and several delaying a considerable time between genetics appointments. We believe that the particularly low uptake even of counselling in men may need to be addressed by improving family communication or providing information sheets for family members to disseminate.

Introduction: A UK multicenter study compared the performance of contrast enhanced-magnetic resonance imaging with X-Ray Mammography in women at highrisk of breast cancer commencing in 1997. Selection criteria were used to identify women with at least 0.9% annual risk of breast cancer. Methods: Women at high breast cancer risk, with a strong family history and/or high probability of a BRCA1/BRCA2/TP53 mutation, were recruited from 22 centers. Those not known as gene carriers were asked to give a blood sample, which was tested anonymously for mutations. Women ages 35 to 49 years were offered annual screening for 2 to 7 years. Study eligibility at entry was assessed retrospectively by detailed examination of pedigrees and overall eligibility accounting for computer risk assessment and mutation results. Results: Seventy-eight of 837 (9%) women entered for screening were ineligible using the strict entry

BACKGROUNDA novel oncogenetic clinic was established in 2002 at the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust offering advice and specialist follow-up for families with a germline mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2. The remit of this multidisciplinary clinic, staffed by individuals in both oncology and genetics, is to provide individualised screening recommendations, support in decision-making, risk-reducing strategies, cascade testing, and an extensive research portfolio.