
Here's What Every Woman Should Know About Their Risk Of Breast Cancer
Breast cancer rates are rising across the United States, with most diagnoses occurring without a clear, predictable explanation. An estimated 85–90% of cases are sporadic, meaning they result from factors such as environmental exposures rather than a known inherited genetic mutation or strong family history. The lack of identifiable causes in most cases is concerning given that nearly 370,000 people will be diagnosed with breast cancer this year in the United States. The American Cancer Society estimates that 42,000 women are projected to die from the disease in 2025.
Prevention and early detection of breast cancer are key to improving survival and both rely on understanding personal risk. 'The problem is that risk matters, but we are not good at measuring risk,' says Dr. Constance Lehman, professor of radiology at Harvard Medical School and breast imaging specialist.
Current Breast Cancer Risk Assessment
Current risk assessment focuses primarily on understanding family history and genetic risk factors. A strong family history—especially of breast and ovarian cancer—may suggest inherited mutations, like BRCA1/BRCA2.
A mature African-American woman in her 40s wearing a hospital gown, getting her annual mammogram. ... More She is being helped by a technologist, a blond woman wearing scrubs.
Mammograms can find cancer and also help estimate future risk by assessing breast density. While most women with dense breasts do not develop breast cancer, dense tissue does increase risk. Most radiologists use a scale called BI-RADS to rate breast density, with higher scores indicating more dense tissue and greater risk. The BI-RADS scale, however, relies on human interpretation and readings can vary between radiologists, making results inconsistent.
Ancillary risk assessment tools, like the Tyrer-Cuzick and Gail models, gather information from patient questionnaires, such as 'any second-degree relatives with breast or ovarian cancer?' These answers estimate the likelihood of developing breast cancer. As these tools rely heavily on patient recall, they can also be inaccurate or incomplete.
Health Inequities with Breast Cancer Risk Assessment
Many of the current risk assessment tools, such as the Tyrer-Cuzick and Gail models, often underperform in racially and ethnically diverse populations—especially Black, Hispanic, Asian, and Indigenous women—due to limited representation in the original data used to train these models.
In a study using the Tyrer‑Cuzick risk calculator of over 15,000 women, Black women were less likely to be classified as high-risk compared to white women, 10.7% vs. 17.5%, despite having similar incidence rates and higher mortality. This suggests that the model underestimates risk for Black women, increasing likelihood of inadequate monitoring, delayed diagnosis, and worse outcomes.
Future of Breast Cancer Risk Assessment
Doctor and patient discuss breast cancer screening
'Many women have never discussed breast cancer risk with their doctors,' Lehman says. 'Some calculate their score online, others fill out a questionnaire sent by their health system. It's chaotic.'
To address this gap in care, Dr. Lehman founded Clairity, Inc. and developed Clairity Breast, an FDA-authorized platform that uses AI to analyze standard mammograms and generate a five-year breast cancer risk score. Unlike traditional risk assessment models, like Tyrer-Cuzick and Gail models, which rely on survey data from the patient, Clairity Breast uses the mammogram itself to assess risk—making it the first widely used model to do so. Their data set was also developed using images from a diverse patient population, unlike older models built on data primarily from racially homogenous populations.
Clairity Breast is not a diagnostic tool, meaning it does not tell patients they have active cancer. Instead, it looks at mammograms and assesses risk of future cancer. 'This is a prognostic test,' Dr. Lehman emphasizes. 'We take a four-view standard mammogram and our model assesses it and generates a percentage risk score for the next five years,' Lehman states. The AI is trained to detect subtle patterns of concern on the mammogram that are invisible to the human eye.
Dr. Andrea Merrill, a breast surgeon at Sentara Breast Surgery Specialists in Charlottesville, Virginia, sees promise in Clairity's approach. She says that currently about 10% of breast cancers go undetected on imaging, even with MRI. 'It's very possible that with more time and improvements, AI could eventually help detect subtle changes that indicate a cancer that normally wouldn't be seen,' she says.
Merrill adds that current tools fail to detect cancer in women under 40 who don't meet criteria for high-risk screening. For patients detected to have increased risk by Clairity Breast, doctors 'can add supplemental imaging, such as MRI or contrast-enhanced mammograms, to detect cancers earlier and treat them at an earlier stage,' says Merrill. 'It might also inform treatment plans that include prescribing medications to reduce their predicted risk of breast cancer.'
Clairity Breast launch in 2025
Clairity Breast is expected to become available in 2025, initially as a self-pay option. The company is working with insurers to pursue coverage, but cost remains a concern in regards to assuring access to all, especially marginalized groups.
Though excited for this new technology, Merrill cautions patients against delaying care until Clairity Breast is released. 'I would not wait for this tool to get your mammogram,' Merrill emphasizes. 'Current screening mammography is still very effective and detects the majority of breast cancers.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Forbes
3 minutes ago
- Forbes
NASA Is Already Prepping To Build Trump A Nuclear Reactor On The Moon
T his week NASA administrator Sean Duffy declared the Trump Administration's intention to land a working nuclear fission reactor on the moon by the end of the decade. 'We're in a race to the moon, in a race with China to the moon,' Duffy said. Planting reactors is more effective than planting a flag in the lunar dust. Duffy referenced the idea of a 'keep-out zone' around a reactor that effectively lays claim to a desirable area, like a craters holding frozen water. Does Duffy's 5-year timetable seem too aggressive? Not particularly, when you consider that NASA and its many contractors have been relying on atomic power for a long time. Since the 1960s, NASA has powered Apollo missions, space probes and Martian landers using radioisotopic batteries that turn the heat emitted by Plutonium-238 and other decaying isotopes into electricity. The Apollo devices are still on the moon with those on Voyager and Pioneer probes were the first manmade objects to leave the solar system. But those devices only put out 100 watts or less. The nuclear fission reactors like what Duffy is talking about are far more complicated. They generate heat by splitting apart Uranium-d238, and would put out 100 kilowatts enough to power a couple dozen homes on Earth. Do we need nuclear on the moon? A decade ago, NASA decided the answer was yes. Nighttime lasts for 14 Earth days in many lunar locations, making solar panels unreliable. And you can't burn oil, coal or gas in a vacuum even if you could get it into orbit. Nasa first validated microreactor tech via the Kilopower project, then in 2022 gave $5 million grants to three consortia to perfect 40 kilowatt designs. The specifications of the Fission Surface Power Project called for a system that weighs just 6 tons, can fit into a cylinder 13 feet in diameter and 20 feet long, and can work for 10 years, self-regulated, with no maintenance or refuelling required. It's a tough remit, says Sebatian Corbisiero, the national technical director for space reactors at the Idaho National Lab, whose team selected the companies for the year-long Nasa study. 'On Earth reactors are not designed to be low mass and small. In space you need as little mass as possible, to fit on a rocket,' he says. Corbisiero does believe a lunar reactor is an important and necessary first step to developing systems that could sustain a Martian colony. As his research group found in 2023, 'Surface nuclear power is required for a sustainable lunar presence.' The three consortia Corbisiero's group selected for the 2022 contract are Lockheed Martin, with BWXT, a team that had already been working for NASA on DRACO, a $500 million demonstration spacecraft powered by a nuclear reactor. Then there's veteran reactor builder Westinghouse, partnered with Aerojet Rocketdyne, which plans to adapt its existing eVinci microreactor. The third is startup X-Energy, teamed with Maxar and Boeing. X-Energy is working on microreactor projects for Dow Chemical and Amazon, but aims to use its own nonstandardized fuel source rather than the standardized HALEU fuel (high assay low enriched uranium) that Nasa directives call for. Corbisiero is diplomatic and won't speculate on which company approach he prefers. The final system is likely to use a Stirling engine to convert fission heat into electricity and feature meltdown-proof liquid sodium circulation. Can we get one on the moon in five years? 'Yes, in my opinion it is doable,' he says. It will depend however on continued development of the rest of the Artemis flight system (the first crewed mission Artemis II is scheduled for early 2026) and whether NASA can get the money. On Earth, microreactors cost billions. According to Duffy, the Trump Administration thinks America can't afford not to plant reactors on the moon as soon as possible. China is planning its Chang'e-8 mission in 2029 to test out methods for building a lunar base with robots and 3-d printers by the mid-2030s. Duffy says both China and the U.S. want to monopolize the best lunar real estate, near the poles, where the sun always shines; 'We have ice there, we have sunlight there. We want to get there first and claim that for America.' More from Forbes Forbes How This Billionaire Family Is Succeeding Despite The Collapse Of The American Shipping Industry By Christopher Helman Forbes Why Ramaco Says It Can Beat Its Government-Backed Rival For Rare Earth Supremacy By Christopher Helman Forbes How An Unassuming Geologist Cracked The Global Fertilizer Cartel By Christopher Helman Forbes Meet The Tiny Startup Building Stargate, OpenAI's $500 Billion Data Center Moonshot By Christopher Helman

Wall Street Journal
3 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Lilly Pill Helps People Lose Up to 12% of Body Weight, a Bit Less Than Expected
An experimental weight-loss pill developed by Eli Lilly helped people lose up to about 12% of their body weight after more than a year of treatment, a new study found, potentially clearing the way for the shot alternative to be on the market next year. The Lilly pill, orforglipron, is expected to become a big seller if regulators approve it for sale. Morgan Stanley analysts said that under their bull-case scenario, the drug's use for both obesity and diabetes could generate annual sales of up to $40 billion by 2033.


Washington Post
3 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Thursday briefing: Trump's tariffs; Fort Stewart shooting; Alzheimer's study; making potatoes healthy; and more
President Donald Trump's new tariffs for dozens of countries took effect overnight. Tulsi Gabbard overrode CIA officials' concerns in a push to release a classified report. The U.S. plans to scale back its human rights criticisms of certain countries. Five soldiers were shot at Fort Stewart Army base in Georgia. Scientists found a potential key to reversing Alzheimer's disease.