Literature DB >> 22076477

Risk prediction models of breast cancer: a systematic review of model performances.

Thunyarat Anothaisintawee1, Yot Teerawattananon, Chollathip Wiratkapun, Vijj Kasamesup, Ammarin Thakkinstian.   

Abstract

The number of risk prediction models has been increasingly developed, for estimating about breast cancer in individual women. However, those model performances are questionable. We therefore have conducted a study with the aim to systematically review previous risk prediction models. The results from this review help to identify the most reliable model and indicate the strengths and weaknesses of each model for guiding future model development. We searched MEDLINE (PubMed) from 1949 and EMBASE (Ovid) from 1974 until October 2010. Observational studies which constructed models using regression methods were selected. Information about model development and performance were extracted. Twenty-five out of 453 studies were eligible. Of these, 18 developed prediction models and 7 validated existing prediction models. Up to 13 variables were included in the models and sample sizes for each study ranged from 550 to 2,404,636. Internal validation was performed in four models, while five models had external validation. Gail and Rosner and Colditz models were the significant models which were subsequently modified by other scholars. Calibration performance of most models was fair to good (expected/observe ratio: 0.87-1.12), but discriminatory accuracy was poor to fair both in internal validation (concordance statistics: 0.53-0.66) and in external validation (concordance statistics: 0.56-0.63). Most models yielded relatively poor discrimination in both internal and external validation. This poor discriminatory accuracy of existing models might be because of a lack of knowledge about risk factors, heterogeneous subtypes of breast cancer, and different distributions of risk factors across populations. In addition the concordance statistic itself is insensitive to measure the improvement of discrimination. Therefore, the new method such as net reclassification index should be considered to evaluate the improvement of the performance of a new develop model.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22076477     DOI: 10.1007/s10549-011-1853-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat        ISSN: 0167-6806            Impact factor:   4.872


  47 in total

1.  Performance of Breast Cancer Risk-Assessment Models in a Large Mammography Cohort.

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

2.  Improving breast cancer risk prediction by using demographic risk factors, abnormality features on mammograms and genetic variants.

Authors:  Shara I Feld; Kaitlin M Woo; Roxana Alexandridis; Yirong Wu; Jie Liu; Peggy Peissig; Adedayo A Onitilo; Jennifer Cox; C David Page; Elizabeth S Burnside
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2018-12-05

3.  Development of a comprehensive health-risk prediction tool for postmenopausal women.

Authors:  Haley Hedlin; Julie Weitlauf; Carolyn J Crandall; Rami Nassir; Jane A Cauley; Lorena Garcia; Robert Brunner; Jennifer Robinson; Marica L Stefanick; John Robbins
Journal:  Menopause       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 2.953

Review 4.  Epigenetic Biomarkers of Breast Cancer Risk: Across the Breast Cancer Prevention Continuum.

Authors:  Mary Beth Terry; Jasmine A McDonald; Hui Chen Wu; Sybil Eng; Regina M Santella
Journal:  Adv Exp Med Biol       Date:  2016       Impact factor: 2.622

5.  A focus group study on breast cancer risk presentation: one format does not fit all.

Authors:  Michel Dorval; Karine Bouchard; Jocelyne Chiquette; Gord Glendon; Christine M Maugard; Wilhelm Dubuisson; Seema Panchal; Jacques Simard
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2012-11-21       Impact factor: 4.246

6.  A clinical risk stratification tool for predicting treatment resistance in major depressive disorder.

Authors:  Roy H Perlis
Journal:  Biol Psychiatry       Date:  2013-02-04       Impact factor: 13.382

7.  Identifying a clinical signature of suicidality among patients with mood disorders: A pilot study using a machine learning approach.

Authors:  Ives Cavalcante Passos; Benson Mwangi; Bo Cao; Jane E Hamilton; Mon-Ju Wu; Xiang Yang Zhang; Giovana B Zunta-Soares; Joao Quevedo; Marcia Kauer-Sant'Anna; Flávio Kapczinski; Jair C Soares
Journal:  J Affect Disord       Date:  2016-01-01       Impact factor: 4.839

8.  The Proliferative Activity of Mammary Epithelial Cells in Normal Tissue Predicts Breast Cancer Risk in Premenopausal Women.

Authors:  Sung Jin Huh; Hannah Oh; Michael A Peterson; Vanessa Almendro; Rong Hu; Michaela Bowden; Rosina L Lis; Maura B Cotter; Massimo Loda; William T Barry; Kornelia Polyak; Rulla M Tamimi
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2016-03-03       Impact factor: 12.701

9.  Variation in Mammographic Breast Density Assessments Among Radiologists in Clinical Practice: A Multicenter Observational Study.

Authors:  Brian L Sprague; Emily F Conant; Tracy Onega; Michael P Garcia; Elisabeth F Beaber; Sally D Herschorn; Constance D Lehman; Anna N A Tosteson; Ronilda Lacson; Mitchell D Schnall; Despina Kontos; Jennifer S Haas; Donald L Weaver; William E Barlow
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2016-07-19       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 10.  Using patient self-reports to study heterogeneity of treatment effects in major depressive disorder.

Authors:  R C Kessler; H M van Loo; K J Wardenaar; R M Bossarte; L A Brenner; D D Ebert; P de Jonge; A A Nierenberg; A J Rosellini; N A Sampson; R A Schoevers; M A Wilcox; A M Zaslavsky
Journal:  Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci       Date:  2016-01-26       Impact factor: 6.892

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.