PURPOSE: Validation of an absolute risk prediction model for colorectal cancer (CRC) by using a large, population-based cohort. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) -American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) diet and health study, a prospective cohort study, was used to validate the model. Men and women age 50 to 71 years at baseline answered self-administered questionnaires that asked about demographic characteristics, diet, lifestyle, and medical histories. We compared expected numbers of CRC patient cases predicted by the model to the observed numbers of CRC patient cases identified in the NIH-AARP study overall and in subgroups defined by risk factor combinations. The discriminatory power was measured by the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC). RESULTS: During an average of 6.9 years of follow-up, we identified 2,092 and 832 incident CRC patient cases in men and women, respectively. The overall expected/observed ratio was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.95 to 1.04) in men and 1.05 (95% CI, 0.98 to 1.11) in women. Agreement between the expected and the observed number of cases was good in most risk factor categories, except for in subgroups defined by CRC screening and polyp history. This discrepancy may be caused by differences in the question on screening and polyp history between two studies. The AUC was 0.61 (95% CI, 0.60 to 0.62) for men and 0.61 (95% CI, 0.59 to 0.62) for women, which was similar to other risk prediction models. CONCLUSION: The absolute risk model for CRC was well calibrated in a large prospective cohort study. This prediction model, which estimates an individual's risk of CRC given age and risk factors, may be a useful tool for physicians, researchers, and policy makers.
PURPOSE: Validation of an absolute risk prediction model for colorectal cancer (CRC) by using a large, population-based cohort. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) -American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) diet and health study, a prospective cohort study, was used to validate the model. Men and women age 50 to 71 years at baseline answered self-administered questionnaires that asked about demographic characteristics, diet, lifestyle, and medical histories. We compared expected numbers of CRC patient cases predicted by the model to the observed numbers of CRC patient cases identified in the NIH-AARP study overall and in subgroups defined by risk factor combinations. The discriminatory power was measured by the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC). RESULTS: During an average of 6.9 years of follow-up, we identified 2,092 and 832 incident CRC patient cases in men and women, respectively. The overall expected/observed ratio was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.95 to 1.04) in men and 1.05 (95% CI, 0.98 to 1.11) in women. Agreement between the expected and the observed number of cases was good in most risk factor categories, except for in subgroups defined by CRC screening and polyp history. This discrepancy may be caused by differences in the question on screening and polyp history between two studies. The AUC was 0.61 (95% CI, 0.60 to 0.62) for men and 0.61 (95% CI, 0.59 to 0.62) for women, which was similar to other risk prediction models. CONCLUSION: The absolute risk model for CRC was well calibrated in a large prospective cohort study. This prediction model, which estimates an individual's risk of CRC given age and risk factors, may be a useful tool for physicians, researchers, and policy makers.
Authors: William E Barlow; Emily White; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Pamela M Vacek; Linda Titus-Ernstoff; Patricia A Carney; Jeffrey A Tice; Diana S M Buist; Berta M Geller; Robert Rosenberg; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Karla Kerlikowske Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2006-09-06 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: A Schatzkin; A F Subar; F E Thompson; L C Harlan; J Tangrea; A R Hollenbeck; P E Hurwitz; L Coyle; N Schussler; D S Michaud; L S Freedman; C C Brown; D Midthune; V Kipnis Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2001-12-15 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Kathleen A Cronin; Mitchell H Gail; Zhaohui Zou; Peter B Bach; Jarmo Virtamo; Demetrius Albanes Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2006-05-03 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Yikyung Park; Amy F Subar; Victor Kipnis; Frances E Thompson; Traci Mouw; Albert Hollenbeck; Michael F Leitzmann; Arthur Schatzkin Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2007-05-07 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Andrew N Freedman; Martha L Slattery; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Gordon Willis; Bette J Cann; David Pee; Mitchell H Gail; Ruth M Pfeiffer Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-12-29 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Brian J Wells; Michael W Kattan; Gregory S Cooper; Leila Jackson; Siran Koroukian Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2014 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.657
Authors: Stephen T Higgins; Allison N Kurti; Ryan Redner; Thomas J White; Diana R Keith; Diann E Gaalema; Brian L Sprague; Cassandra A Stanton; Megan E Roberts; Nathan J Doogan; Jeff S Priest Journal: Prev Med Date: 2016-02-21 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Kana Wu; Edward L Giovannucci; Yin Cao; Bernard A Rosner; Jing Ma; Rulla M Tamimi; Andrew T Chan; Charles S Fuchs Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2015-04-23 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Thomas F Imperiale; Menggang Yu; Patrick O Monahan; Timothy E Stump; Rebeka Tabbey; Elizabeth Glowinski; David F Ransohoff Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2016-08-31 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Frank van Hees; Sameer D Saini; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Sandeep Vijan; Reinier G S Meester; Harry J de Koning; Ann G Zauber; Marjolein van Ballegooijen Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2015-08-04 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Thomas F Imperiale; Patrick O Monahan; Timothy E Stump; Elizabeth A Glowinski; David F Ransohoff Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2015-09-01 Impact factor: 25.391