INTRODUCTION: Accurate individualised breast cancer risk assessment is essential to provide risk-benefit analysis prior to initiating interventions designed to lower breast cancer risk. Several mathematical models for the estimation of individual breast cancer risk have been proposed. However, no single model integrates family history, hormonal factors, and benign breast disease in a comprehensive fashion. A new model by Tyrer and Cuzick has addressed these deficiencies. Therefore, this study has assessed the goodness of fit and discriminatory value of the Tyrer-Cuzick model against established models namely Gail, Claus, and Ford. METHODS: The goodness of fit and discriminatory accuracy of the models was assessed using data from 1933 women attending the Family History Evaluation and Screening Programme, of whom 52 developed cancer. All models were applied to these women over a mean follow up of 5.27 years to estimate risk of breast cancer. RESULTS: The ratios (95% confidence intervals) of expected to observed numbers of breast cancers were 0.48 (0.37 to 0.64) for Gail, 0.56 (0.43 to 0.75) for Claus, 0.49 (0.37 to 0.65) for Ford, and 0.81 (0.62 to 1.08) for Tyrer-Cuzick. The accuracy of the models for individual cases was evaluated using ROC curves. These showed that the area under the curve was 0.735 for Gail, 0.716 for Claus, 0.737 for Ford, and 0.762 for Tyrer-Cuzick. CONCLUSION: The Tyrer-Cuzick model is the most consistently accurate model for prediction of breast cancer. The Gail, Claus, and Ford models all significantly underestimate risk, although the accuracy of the Claus model may be improved by adjustments for other risk factors.
INTRODUCTION: Accurate individualised breast cancer risk assessment is essential to provide risk-benefit analysis prior to initiating interventions designed to lower breast cancer risk. Several mathematical models for the estimation of individual breast cancer risk have been proposed. However, no single model integrates family history, hormonal factors, and benign breast disease in a comprehensive fashion. A new model by Tyrer and Cuzick has addressed these deficiencies. Therefore, this study has assessed the goodness of fit and discriminatory value of the Tyrer-Cuzick model against established models namely Gail, Claus, and Ford. METHODS: The goodness of fit and discriminatory accuracy of the models was assessed using data from 1933 women attending the Family History Evaluation and Screening Programme, of whom 52 developed cancer. All models were applied to these women over a mean follow up of 5.27 years to estimate risk of breast cancer. RESULTS: The ratios (95% confidence intervals) of expected to observed numbers of breast cancers were 0.48 (0.37 to 0.64) for Gail, 0.56 (0.43 to 0.75) for Claus, 0.49 (0.37 to 0.65) for Ford, and 0.81 (0.62 to 1.08) for Tyrer-Cuzick. The accuracy of the models for individual cases was evaluated using ROC curves. These showed that the area under the curve was 0.735 for Gail, 0.716 for Claus, 0.737 for Ford, and 0.762 for Tyrer-Cuzick. CONCLUSION: The Tyrer-Cuzick model is the most consistently accurate model for prediction of breast cancer. The Gail, Claus, and Ford models all significantly underestimate risk, although the accuracy of the Claus model may be improved by adjustments for other risk factors.
Authors: M H Gail; J P Costantino; J Bryant; R Croyle; L Freedman; K Helzlsouer; V Vogel Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1999-11-03 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: H Jernström; C Lerman; P Ghadirian; H T Lynch; B Weber; J Garber; M Daly; O I Olopade; W D Foulkes; E Warner; J S Brunet; S A Narod Journal: Lancet Date: 1999-11-27 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: J P Costantino; M H Gail; D Pee; S Anderson; C K Redmond; J Benichou; H S Wieand Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1999-09-15 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: D Ford; D F Easton; M Stratton; S Narod; D Goldgar; P Devilee; D T Bishop; B Weber; G Lenoir; J Chang-Claude; H Sobol; M D Teare; J Struewing; A Arason; S Scherneck; J Peto; T R Rebbeck; P Tonin; S Neuhausen; R Barkardottir; J Eyfjord; H Lynch; B A Ponder; S A Gayther; M Zelada-Hedman Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 1998-03 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: M H Gail; L A Brinton; D P Byar; D K Corle; S B Green; C Schairer; J J Mulvihill Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1989-12-20 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Anne Marie McCarthy; Zoe Guan; Michaela Welch; Molly E Griffin; Dorothy A Sippo; Zhengyi Deng; Suzanne B Coopey; Ahmet Acar; Alan Semine; Giovanni Parmigiani; Danielle Braun; Kevin S Hughes Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Monica G Valero; Emily C Zabor; Anna Park; Elizabeth Gilbert; Ashely Newman; Tari A King; Melissa L Pilewskie Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2019-09-26 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Richard G Roetzheim; Ji-Hyun Lee; William Fulp; Elizabeth Matos Gomez; Elissa Clayton; Sharon Tollin; Nazanin Khakpour; Christine Laronga; Marie Catherine Lee; John V Kiluk Journal: Breast Date: 2014-12-06 Impact factor: 4.380
Authors: Elaine Anderson; Jonathan Berg; Roger Black; Nicola Bradshaw; Joyce Campbell; Roseanne Cetnarskyj; Sarah Drummond; Rosemarie Davidson; Jacqueline Dunlop; Alison Fordyce; Barbara Gibbons; David Goudie; Helen Gregory; Kirstie Hanning; Susan Holloway; Mark Longmuir; Lorna McLeish; Vicky Murday; Zosia Miedzybrodska; Donna Nicholson; Pauline Pearson; Mary Porteous; Marta Reis; Sheila Slater; Karen Smith; Elizabeth Smyth; Lesley Snadden; Michael Steel; Diane Stirling; Cathy Watt; Catriona Whyte; Dorothy Young Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2008-06-17 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Mark Powell; Farid Jamshidian; Kate Cheyne; Joanne Nititham; Lee Ann Prebil; Rochelle Ereman Journal: Clin Breast Cancer Date: 2013-11-22 Impact factor: 3.225
Authors: Jeffrey A Tice; Diana L Miglioretti; Chin-Shang Li; Celine M Vachon; Charlotte C Gard; Karla Kerlikowske Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-08-17 Impact factor: 44.544