Literature DB >> 21337591

Personalized estimates of breast cancer risk in clinical practice and public health.

Mitchell H Gail1.   

Abstract

This paper defines absolute risk and some of its properties, and presents applications in breast cancer counseling and prevention. For counseling, estimates of absolute risk give useful perspective and can be used in management decisions that require weighing risks and benefits, such as whether or not to take tamoxifen to prevent breast cancer. Absolute risk models are also useful in designing intervention trials to prevent breast cancer and in assessing the potential reductions in absolute risk of disease that might result from reducing exposures that are associated with breast cancer. In these applications, it is important that the risk model be well calibrated, namely that it accurately predicts the numbers of women who will develop breast cancer in various subsets of the population. Absolute risk models are also needed to implement a 'high risk' prevention strategy that identifies a high-risk subset of the population and focuses intervention efforts on that subset. The limitations of the high-risk strategy are discussed, including the need for risk models with high discriminatory accuracy, and the need for less toxic interventions that can reduce the threshold of risk above which the intervention provides a net benefit. I also discuss the potential use of risk models in allocating prevention resources under cost constraints. High discriminatory accuracy of the risk model, in addition to good calibration, is desirable in this application, and the risk assessment should not be expensive in comparison with the intervention. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the U.S.A. Published in 2011 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21337591      PMCID: PMC3079423          DOI: 10.1002/sim.4187

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  58 in total

1.  Effects of tamoxifen vs raloxifene on the risk of developing invasive breast cancer and other disease outcomes: the NSABP Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR) P-2 trial.

Authors:  Victor G Vogel; Joseph P Costantino; D Lawrence Wickerham; Walter M Cronin; Reena S Cecchini; James N Atkins; Therese B Bevers; Louis Fehrenbacher; Eduardo R Pajon; James L Wade; André Robidoux; Richard G Margolese; Joan James; Scott M Lippman; Carolyn D Runowicz; Patricia A Ganz; Steven E Reis; Worta McCaskill-Stevens; Leslie G Ford; V Craig Jordan; Norman Wolmark
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2006-06-05       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Integrating the predictiveness of a marker with its performance as a classifier.

Authors:  Margaret S Pepe; Ziding Feng; Ying Huang; Gary Longton; Ross Prentice; Ian M Thompson; Yingye Zheng
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2007-11-02       Impact factor: 4.897

3.  Validation of the Gail et al. model of breast cancer risk prediction and implications for chemoprevention.

Authors:  B Rockhill; D Spiegelman; C Byrne; D J Hunter; G A Colditz
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2001-03-07       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  The analysis of failure times in the presence of competing risks.

Authors:  R L Prentice; J D Kalbfleisch; A V Peterson; N Flournoy; V T Farewell; N E Breslow
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1978-12       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 5.  Assessing women at high risk of breast cancer: a review of risk assessment models.

Authors:  Eitan Amir; Orit C Freedman; Bostjan Seruga; D Gareth Evans
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2010-04-28       Impact factor: 13.506

6.  Use and misuse of the receiver operating characteristic curve in risk prediction.

Authors:  Nancy R Cook
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2007-02-20       Impact factor: 29.690

Review 7.  Modelling the molecular circuitry of cancer.

Authors:  William C Hahn; Robert A Weinberg
Journal:  Nat Rev Cancer       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 60.716

8.  Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models.

Authors:  Andrew J Vickers; Elena B Elkin
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2006 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.583

Review 9.  Prevention of breast cancer in postmenopausal women: approaches to estimating and reducing risk.

Authors:  Steven R Cummings; Jeffrey A Tice; Scott Bauer; Warren S Browner; Jack Cuzick; Elad Ziv; Victor Vogel; John Shepherd; Celine Vachon; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2009-03-10       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  The decrease in breast-cancer incidence in 2003 in the United States.

Authors:  Peter M Ravdin; Kathleen A Cronin; Nadia Howlader; Christine D Berg; Rowan T Chlebowski; Eric J Feuer; Brenda K Edwards; Donald A Berry
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2007-04-19       Impact factor: 91.245

View more
  36 in total

Review 1.  Characterising the epigenome as a key component of the fetal exposome in evaluating in utero exposures and childhood cancer risk.

Authors:  Akram Ghantous; Hector Hernandez-Vargas; Graham Byrnes; Terence Dwyer; Zdenko Herceg
Journal:  Mutagenesis       Date:  2015-02-26       Impact factor: 3.000

2.  Evaluating the Impact of Uncertainty on Risk Prediction: Towards More Robust Prediction Models.

Authors:  Panayiotis Petousis; Arash Naeim; Ali Mosleh; William Hsu
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2018-12-05

3.  Estimation of lifetime risks of Alzheimer's disease dementia using biomarkers for preclinical disease.

Authors:  Ron Brookmeyer; Nada Abdalla
Journal:  Alzheimers Dement       Date:  2018-05-22       Impact factor: 21.566

4.  Design and sample size considerations for Alzheimer's disease prevention trials using multistate models.

Authors:  Ron Brookmeyer; Nada Abdalla
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 2.486

5.  Using multiple risk models with preventive interventions.

Authors:  Mitchell H Gail
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2012-06-26       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  Statistical interactions and Bayes estimation of log odds in case-control studies.

Authors:  Jaya M Satagopan; Sara H Olson; Robert C Elston
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2015-01-12       Impact factor: 3.021

7.  Assessment of a Four-View Mammographic Image Feature Based Fusion Model to Predict Near-Term Breast Cancer Risk.

Authors:  Maxine Tan; Jiantao Pu; Samuel Cheng; Hong Liu; Bin Zheng
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  2015-04-08       Impact factor: 3.934

8.  Estrogen plus progestin and breast cancer incidence and mortality in the Women's Health Initiative Observational Study.

Authors:  Rowan T Chlebowski; JoAnn E Manson; Garnet L Anderson; Jane A Cauley; Aaron K Aragaki; Marcia L Stefanick; Dorothy S Lane; Karen C Johnson; Jean Wactawski-Wende; Chu Chen; Lihong Qi; Shagufta Yasmeen; Polly A Newcomb; Ross L Prentice
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2013-03-29       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  The risk of developing invasive breast cancer in Hispanic women : a look across Hispanic subgroups.

Authors:  Matthew P Banegas; Mei Leng; Barry I Graubard; Leo S Morales
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2012-12-07       Impact factor: 6.860

10.  Using the Lorenz Curve to Characterize Risk Predictiveness and Etiologic Heterogeneity.

Authors:  Audrey Mauguen; Colin B Begg
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 4.822

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.