BACKGROUND: Strategies for estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer risk reduction in postmenopausal women require screening of large populations to identify those with potential benefit. We evaluated and attempted to improve the performance of the Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (i.e., the Gail model) for estimating invasive breast cancer risk by receptor status in postmenopausal women. METHODS: In The Women's Health Initiative cohort, breast cancer risk estimates from the Gail model and models incorporating additional or fewer risk factors and 5-year incidence of ER-positive and ER-negative invasive breast cancers were determined and compared by use of receiver operating characteristics and area under the curve (AUC) statistics. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Among 147,916 eligible women, 3236 were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer. The overall AUC for the Gail model was 0.58 (95% confidence interval [CI]=0.56 to 0.60). The Gail model underestimated 5-year invasive breast cancer incidence by approximately 20% (P<.001), mostly among those with a low estimated risk. Discriminatory performance was better for the risk of ER-positive cancer (AUC = 0.60, 95% CI = 0.58 to 0.62) than for the risk of ER-negative cancer (AUC = 0.50, 95% CI = 0.45 to 0.54). Age and age at menopause were statistically significantly associated with ER-positive but not ER-negative cancers (P=.05 and P=.04 for heterogeneity, respectively). For ER-positive cancers, no additional risk factors substantially improved the Gail model prediction. However, a simpler model that included only age, breast cancer in first-degree relatives, and previous breast biopsy examination performed similarly for ER-positive breast cancer prediction (AUC=0.58, 95% CI= 0.56 to 0.60); postmenopausal women who were 55 years or older with either a previous breast biopsy examination or a family history of breast cancer had a 5-year breast cancer risk of 1.8% or higher. CONCLUSIONS: In postmenopausal women, the Gail model identified populations at increased risk for ER-positive but not ER-negative breast cancers. A model with fewer variables appears to provide a simpler approach for screening for breast cancer risk.
BACKGROUND: Strategies for estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer risk reduction in postmenopausal women require screening of large populations to identify those with potential benefit. We evaluated and attempted to improve the performance of the Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (i.e., the Gail model) for estimating invasive breast cancer risk by receptor status in postmenopausal women. METHODS: In The Women's Health Initiative cohort, breast cancer risk estimates from the Gail model and models incorporating additional or fewer risk factors and 5-year incidence of ER-positive and ER-negative invasive breast cancers were determined and compared by use of receiver operating characteristics and area under the curve (AUC) statistics. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Among 147,916 eligible women, 3236 were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer. The overall AUC for the Gail model was 0.58 (95% confidence interval [CI]=0.56 to 0.60). The Gail model underestimated 5-year invasive breast cancer incidence by approximately 20% (P<.001), mostly among those with a low estimated risk. Discriminatory performance was better for the risk of ER-positive cancer (AUC = 0.60, 95% CI = 0.58 to 0.62) than for the risk of ER-negative cancer (AUC = 0.50, 95% CI = 0.45 to 0.54). Age and age at menopause were statistically significantly associated with ER-positive but not ER-negative cancers (P=.05 and P=.04 for heterogeneity, respectively). For ER-positive cancers, no additional risk factors substantially improved the Gail model prediction. However, a simpler model that included only age, breast cancer in first-degree relatives, and previous breast biopsy examination performed similarly for ER-positive breast cancer prediction (AUC=0.58, 95% CI= 0.56 to 0.60); postmenopausal women who were 55 years or older with either a previous breast biopsy examination or a family history of breast cancer had a 5-year breast cancer risk of 1.8% or higher. CONCLUSIONS: In postmenopausal women, the Gail model identified populations at increased risk for ER-positive but not ER-negative breast cancers. A model with fewer variables appears to provide a simpler approach for screening for breast cancer risk.
Authors: Matthew P Banegas; Mitchell H Gail; Andrea LaCroix; Beti Thompson; Maria Elena Martinez; Jean Wactawski-Wende; Esther M John; F Allan Hubbell; Shagufta Yasmeen; Hormuzd A Katki Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2011-12-07 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Paolo Fusar-Poli; Marco Cappucciati; Grazia Rutigliano; Frauke Schultze-Lutter; Ilaria Bonoldi; Stefan Borgwardt; Anita Riecher-Rössler; Jean Addington; Diana Perkins; Scott W Woods; Thomas H McGlashan; Jimmy Lee; Joachim Klosterkötter; Alison R Yung; Philip McGuire Journal: World Psychiatry Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 49.548
Authors: Karla Kerlikowske; Charlotte C Gard; Jeffrey A Tice; Elad Ziv; Steven R Cummings; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2016-12-31 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: Kristen S Purrington; Susan Slager; Diana Eccles; Drakoulis Yannoukakos; Peter A Fasching; Penelope Miron; Jane Carpenter; Jenny Chang-Claude; Nicholas G Martin; Grant W Montgomery; Vessela Kristensen; Hoda Anton-Culver; Paul Goodfellow; William J Tapper; Sajjad Rafiq; Susan M Gerty; Lorraine Durcan; Irene Konstantopoulou; Florentia Fostira; Athanassios Vratimos; Paraskevi Apostolou; Irene Konstanta; Vassiliki Kotoula; Sotiris Lakis; Meletios A Dimopoulos; Dimosthenis Skarlos; Dimitrios Pectasides; George Fountzilas; Matthias W Beckmann; Alexander Hein; Matthias Ruebner; Arif B Ekici; Arndt Hartmann; Ruediger Schulz-Wendtland; Stefan P Renner; Wolfgang Janni; Brigitte Rack; Christoph Scholz; Julia Neugebauer; Ulrich Andergassen; Michael P Lux; Lothar Haeberle; Christine Clarke; Nirmala Pathmanathan; Anja Rudolph; Dieter Flesch-Janys; Stefan Nickels; Janet E Olson; James N Ingle; Curtis Olswold; Seth Slettedahl; Jeanette E Eckel-Passow; S Keith Anderson; Daniel W Visscher; Victoria L Cafourek; Hugues Sicotte; Naresh Prodduturi; Elisabete Weiderpass; Leslie Bernstein; Argyrios Ziogas; Jennifer Ivanovich; Graham G Giles; Laura Baglietto; Melissa Southey; Veli-Matti Kosma; Hans-Peter Fischer; Malcom W R Reed; Simon S Cross; Sandra Deming-Halverson; Martha Shrubsole; Qiuyin Cai; Xiao-Ou Shu; Mary Daly; Joellen Weaver; Eric Ross; Jennifer Klemp; Priyanka Sharma; Diana Torres; Thomas Rüdiger; Heidrun Wölfing; Hans-Ulrich Ulmer; Asta Försti; Thaer Khoury; Shicha Kumar; Robert Pilarski; Charles L Shapiro; Dario Greco; Päivi Heikkilä; Kristiina Aittomäki; Carl Blomqvist; Astrid Irwanto; Jianjun Liu; Vernon Shane Pankratz; Xianshu Wang; Gianluca Severi; Arto Mannermaa; Douglas Easton; Per Hall; Hiltrud Brauch; Angela Cox; Wei Zheng; Andrew K Godwin; Ute Hamann; Christine Ambrosone; Amanda Ewart Toland; Heli Nevanlinna; Celine M Vachon; Fergus J Couch Journal: Carcinogenesis Date: 2013-12-09 Impact factor: 4.944
Authors: Jeanine M Genkinger; Kepher H Makambi; Julie R Palmer; Lynn Rosenberg; Lucile L Adams-Campbell Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2013-01-18 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Louise A Brinton; Llewellyn Smith; Gretchen L Gierach; Ruth M Pfeiffer; Sarah J Nyante; Mark E Sherman; Yikyung Park; Albert R Hollenbeck; Cher M Dallal Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2014-05-09 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Reena S Cecchini; Joseph P Costantino; Jane A Cauley; Walter M Cronin; D Lawrence Wickerham; Hanna Bandos; Joel L Weissfeld; Norman Wolmark Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2012-10-11