PURPOSE: An accurate estimate of a woman's breast cancer risk is essential for optimal patient counseling and management. Women with biopsy-confirmed atypical hyperplasia of the breast (atypia) are at high risk for breast cancer. The Gail model is widely used in these women, but has not been validated in them. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women with atypia were identified from the Mayo Benign Breast Disease (BBD) cohort (1967 to 1991). Their risk factors for breast cancer were obtained, and the Gail model was used to predict 5-year-and follow-up-specific risks for each woman. The predicted and observed numbers of breast cancers were compared, and the concordance between individual risk levels and outcomes was computed. RESULTS: Of the 9,376 women in the BBD cohort, 331 women had atypia (3.5%). At a mean follow-up of 13.7 years, 58 of 331 (17.5%) patients had developed invasive breast cancer, 1.66 times more than the 34.9 predicted by the Gail model (95% CI, 1.29 to 2.15; P < .001). For individual women, the concordance between predicted and observed outcomes was low, with a concordance statistic of 0.50 (95% CI, 0.44 to 0.55). CONCLUSION: The Gail model significantly underestimates the risk of breast cancer in women with atypia. Its ability to discriminate women with atypia into those who did and did not develop breast cancer is limited. Health care professionals should be cautious when using the Gail model to counsel individual patients with atypia.
PURPOSE: An accurate estimate of a woman's breast cancer risk is essential for optimal patient counseling and management. Women with biopsy-confirmed atypical hyperplasia of the breast (atypia) are at high risk for breast cancer. The Gail model is widely used in these women, but has not been validated in them. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women with atypia were identified from the MayoBenign Breast Disease (BBD) cohort (1967 to 1991). Their risk factors for breast cancer were obtained, and the Gail model was used to predict 5-year-and follow-up-specific risks for each woman. The predicted and observed numbers of breast cancers were compared, and the concordance between individual risk levels and outcomes was computed. RESULTS: Of the 9,376 women in the BBD cohort, 331 women had atypia (3.5%). At a mean follow-up of 13.7 years, 58 of 331 (17.5%) patients had developed invasive breast cancer, 1.66 times more than the 34.9 predicted by the Gail model (95% CI, 1.29 to 2.15; P < .001). For individual women, the concordance between predicted and observed outcomes was low, with a concordance statistic of 0.50 (95% CI, 0.44 to 0.55). CONCLUSION: The Gail model significantly underestimates the risk of breast cancer in women with atypia. Its ability to discriminate women with atypia into those who did and did not develop breast cancer is limited. Health care professionals should be cautious when using the Gail model to counsel individual patients with atypia.
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: 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: Amy C Degnim; William D Dupont; Derek C Radisky; Robert A Vierkant; Ryan D Frank; Marlene H Frost; Stacey J Winham; Melinda E Sanders; Jeffrey R Smith; David L Page; Tanya L Hoskin; Celine M Vachon; Karthik Ghosh; Tina J Hieken; Lori A Denison; Jodi M Carter; Lynn C Hartmann; Daniel W Visscher Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-06-28 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Zexian Zeng; Andy Vo; Xiaoyu Li; Ali Shidfar; Paulette Saldana; Luis Blanco; Xiaoling Xuei; Yuan Luo; Seema A Khan; Susan E Clare Journal: NPJ Breast Cancer Date: 2020-06-12
Authors: Sandhya Pruthi; Li Yang; Nicole P Sandhu; James N Ingle; Cheryl L Beseler; Vera J Suman; Ercole L Cavalieri; Eleanor G Rogan Journal: J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol Date: 2012-02-24 Impact factor: 4.292
Authors: Sara J Schonfeld; David Pee; Robert T Greenlee; Patricia Hartge; James V Lacey; Yikyung Park; Arthur Schatzkin; Kala Visvanathan; Ruth M Pfeiffer Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-04-05 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Marta Santisteban; Carol Reynolds; Emily G Barr Fritcher; Marlene H Frost; Robert A Vierkant; Stephanie S Anderson; Amy C Degnim; Daniel W Visscher; V Shane Pankratz; Lynn C Hartmann Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2009-09-23 Impact factor: 4.872
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
Authors: Karthik Ghosh; Celine M Vachon; V Shane Pankratz; Robert A Vierkant; Stephanie S Anderson; Kathleen R Brandt; Daniel W Visscher; Carol Reynolds; Marlene H Frost; Lynn C Hartmann Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2010-10-29 Impact factor: 13.506