Jeffrey A Tice1, Diana L Miglioretti2, Chin-Shang Li2, Celine M Vachon2, Charlotte C Gard2, Karla Kerlikowske2. 1. Jeffrey A. Tice and Karla Kerlikowske, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco; Diana L. Miglioretti and Chin-Shang Li, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA; Diana L. Miglioretti, Group Health Research Institute, Group Health Cooperative, Seattle, WA; Celine M. Vachon, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; and Charlotte C. Gard, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM. jtice@medicine.ucsf.edu. 2. Jeffrey A. Tice and Karla Kerlikowske, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco; Diana L. Miglioretti and Chin-Shang Li, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA; Diana L. Miglioretti, Group Health Research Institute, Group Health Cooperative, Seattle, WA; Celine M. Vachon, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; and Charlotte C. Gard, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Women with proliferative breast lesions are candidates for primary prevention, but few risk models incorporate benign findings to assess breast cancer risk. We incorporated benign breast disease (BBD) diagnoses into the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) risk model, the only breast cancer risk assessment tool that uses breast density. METHODS: We developed and validated a competing-risk model using 2000 to 2010 SEER data for breast cancer incidence and 2010 vital statistics to adjust for the competing risk of death. We used Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate the relative hazards for age, race/ethnicity, family history of breast cancer, history of breast biopsy, BBD diagnoses, and breast density in the BCSC. RESULTS: We included 1,135,977 women age 35 to 74 years undergoing mammography with no history of breast cancer; 17% of the women had a prior breast biopsy. During a mean follow-up of 6.9 years, 17,908 women were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer. The BCSC BBD model slightly overpredicted risk (expected-to-observed ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.06) and had modest discriminatory accuracy (area under the receiver operator characteristic curve, 0.665). Among women with proliferative findings, adding BBD to the model increased the proportion of women with an estimated 5-year risk of 3% or higher from 9.3% to 27.8% (P<.001). CONCLUSION: The BCSC BBD model accurately estimates women's risk for breast cancer using breast density and BBD diagnoses. Greater numbers of high-risk women eligible for primary prevention after BBD diagnosis are identified using the BCSC BBD model.
PURPOSE:Women with proliferative breast lesions are candidates for primary prevention, but few risk models incorporate benign findings to assess breast cancer risk. We incorporated benign breast disease (BBD) diagnoses into the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) risk model, the only breast cancer risk assessment tool that uses breast density. METHODS: We developed and validated a competing-risk model using 2000 to 2010 SEER data for breast cancer incidence and 2010 vital statistics to adjust for the competing risk of death. We used Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate the relative hazards for age, race/ethnicity, family history of breast cancer, history of breast biopsy, BBD diagnoses, and breast density in the BCSC. RESULTS: We included 1,135,977 women age 35 to 74 years undergoing mammography with no history of breast cancer; 17% of the women had a prior breast biopsy. During a mean follow-up of 6.9 years, 17,908 women were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer. The BCSC BBD model slightly overpredicted risk (expected-to-observed ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.06) and had modest discriminatory accuracy (area under the receiver operator characteristic curve, 0.665). Among women with proliferative findings, adding BBD to the model increased the proportion of women with an estimated 5-year risk of 3% or higher from 9.3% to 27.8% (P<.001). CONCLUSION: The BCSC BBD model accurately estimates women's risk for breast cancer using breast density and BBD diagnoses. Greater numbers of high-risk women eligible for primary prevention after BBD diagnosis are identified using the BCSC BBD model.
Authors: Neil J Stone; Jennifer G Robinson; Alice H Lichtenstein; C Noel Bairey Merz; Conrad B Blum; Robert H Eckel; Anne C Goldberg; David Gordon; Daniel Levy; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Patrick McBride; J Sanford Schwartz; Susan T Shero; Sidney C Smith; Karol Watson; Peter W F Wilson Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2013-11-12 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Kala Visvanathan; Patricia Hurley; Elissa Bantug; Powel Brown; Nananda F Col; Jack Cuzick; Nancy E Davidson; Andrea Decensi; Carol Fabian; Leslie Ford; Judy Garber; Maria Katapodi; Barnett Kramer; Monica Morrow; Barbara Parker; Carolyn Runowicz; Victor G Vogel; James L Wade; Scott M Lippman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-07-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jeffrey A Tice; Ellen S O'Meara; Donald L Weaver; Celine Vachon; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Karla Kerlikowske Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2013-06-06 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Judy C Boughey; Lynn C Hartmann; Stephanie S Anderson; Amy C Degnim; Robert A Vierkant; Carol A Reynolds; Marlene H Frost; V Shane Pankratz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-07-06 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jane Warwick; Hanna Birke; Jennifer Stone; Ruth M L Warren; Elizabeth Pinney; Adam R Brentnall; Stephen W Duffy; Anthony Howell; Jack Cuzick Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2014-10-08 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: Diana L Miglioretti; Linn Abraham; Christoph I Lee; Diana S M Buist; Sally D Herschorn; Brian L Sprague; Louise M Henderson; Anna N A Tosteson; Karla Kerlikowske Journal: Radiology Date: 2019-02-26 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: B L Sprague; K Kerlikowske; E J A Bowles; G H Rauscher; C I Lee; A N A Tosteson; D L Miglioretti Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2019-06-01 Impact factor: 13.506
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: Janie M Lee; Robert F Arao; Brian L Sprague; Karla Kerlikowske; Constance D Lehman; Robert A Smith; Louise M Henderson; Garth H Rauscher; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Jennifer S Haas; Catherine S Giess; Kimberly A Harris; Julia Ansolabehere; Celia P Kaplan Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-08-08 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Elizabeth S Burnside; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Christina M Shafer; John M Hampton; Oguz Alagoz; Jennifer R Cox; Eric Mischo; Sarina B Schrager; Lee G Wilke Journal: Radiology Date: 2019-06-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Yiwey Shieh; Donglei Hu; Lin Ma; Scott Huntsman; Charlotte C Gard; Jessica W T Leung; Jeffrey A Tice; Celine M Vachon; Steven R Cummings; Karla Kerlikowske; Elad Ziv Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2016-08-26 Impact factor: 4.872