Elizabeth S Burnside1, Jie Liu2, Yirong Wu3, Adedayo A Onitilo4, Catherine A McCarty5, C David Page2, Peggy L Peissig6, Amy Trentham-Dietz7, Terrie Kitchner6, Jun Fan8, Ming Yuan8. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, E3/311 Clinical Science Center, 600 Highland Ave., Madison, WI 53792-3252; Department of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. Electronic address: eburnside@uwhealth.org. 2. Department of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. 3. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, E3/311 Clinical Science Center, 600 Highland Ave., Madison, WI 53792-3252. 4. Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation, Marshfield, Wisconsin; Department of Hematology/Oncology, Marshfield Clinic Weston Center, Weston, Wisconsin. 5. Essentia Institute of Rural Health, Duluth, Minnesota. 6. Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation, Marshfield, Wisconsin. 7. Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. 8. Department of Statistics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin; Morgridge Institute for Research, Madison, Wisconsin.
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The discovery of germline genetic variants associated with breast cancer has engendered interest in risk stratification for improved, targeted detection and diagnosis. However, there has yet to be a comparison of the predictive ability of these genetic variants with mammography abnormality descriptors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our institutional review board-approved, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant study utilized a personalized medicine registry in which participants consented to provide a DNA sample and to participate in longitudinal follow-up. In our retrospective, age-matched, case-controlled study of 373 cases and 395 controls who underwent breast biopsy, we collected risk factors selected a priori based on the literature, including demographic variables based on the Gail model, common germline genetic variants, and diagnostic mammography findings according to Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). We developed predictive models using logistic regression to determine the predictive ability of (1) demographic variables, (2) 10 selected genetic variants, or (3) mammography BI-RADS features. We evaluated each model in turn by calculating a risk score for each patient using 10-fold cross-validation, used this risk estimate to construct Receiver Operator Characteristic Curve (ROC) curves, and compared the area under the ROC curve (AUC) of each using the DeLong method. RESULTS: The performance of the regression model using demographic risk factors was not statistically different from the model using genetic variants (P = 0.9). The model using mammography features (AUC = 0.689) was superior to both the demographic model (AUC = .598; P < 0.001) and the genetic model (AUC = .601; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: BI-RADS features exceeded the ability of demographic and 10 selected germline genetic variants to predict breast cancer in women recommended for biopsy.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The discovery of germline genetic variants associated with breast cancer has engendered interest in risk stratification for improved, targeted detection and diagnosis. However, there has yet to be a comparison of the predictive ability of these genetic variants with mammography abnormality descriptors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our institutional review board-approved, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant study utilized a personalized medicine registry in which participants consented to provide a DNA sample and to participate in longitudinal follow-up. In our retrospective, age-matched, case-controlled study of 373 cases and 395 controls who underwent breast biopsy, we collected risk factors selected a priori based on the literature, including demographic variables based on the Gail model, common germline genetic variants, and diagnostic mammography findings according to Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). We developed predictive models using logistic regression to determine the predictive ability of (1) demographic variables, (2) 10 selected genetic variants, or (3) mammography BI-RADS features. We evaluated each model in turn by calculating a risk score for each patient using 10-fold cross-validation, used this risk estimate to construct Receiver Operator Characteristic Curve (ROC) curves, and compared the area under the ROC curve (AUC) of each using the DeLong method. RESULTS: The performance of the regression model using demographic risk factors was not statistically different from the model using genetic variants (P = 0.9). The model using mammography features (AUC = 0.689) was superior to both the demographic model (AUC = .598; P < 0.001) and the genetic model (AUC = .601; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: BI-RADS features exceeded the ability of demographic and 10 selected germline genetic variants to predict breast cancer in women recommended for biopsy.
Authors: Sholom Wacholder; Patricia Hartge; Ross Prentice; Montserrat Garcia-Closas; Heather Spencer Feigelson; W Ryan Diver; Michael J Thun; David G Cox; Susan E Hankinson; Peter Kraft; Bernard Rosner; Christine D Berg; Louise A Brinton; Jolanta Lissowska; Mark E Sherman; Rowan Chlebowski; Charles Kooperberg; Rebecca D Jackson; Dennis W Buckman; Peter Hui; Ruth Pfeiffer; Kevin B Jacobs; Gilles D Thomas; Robert N Hoover; Mitchell H Gail; Stephen J Chanock; David J Hunter Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-03-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jeffrey A Tice; Steven R Cummings; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Laura Ichikawa; William E Barlow; Karla Kerlikowske Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2008-03-04 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Jagpreet Chhatwal; Oguzhan Alagoz; Mary J Lindstrom; Charles E Kahn; Katherine A Shaffer; Elizabeth S Burnside Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Douglas F Easton; Karen A Pooley; Alison M Dunning; Paul D P Pharoah; Deborah Thompson; Dennis G Ballinger; Jeffery P Struewing; Jonathan Morrison; Helen Field; Robert Luben; Nicholas Wareham; Shahana Ahmed; Catherine S Healey; Richard Bowman; Kerstin B Meyer; Christopher A Haiman; Laurence K Kolonel; Brian E Henderson; Loic Le Marchand; Paul Brennan; Suleeporn Sangrajrang; Valerie Gaborieau; Fabrice Odefrey; Chen-Yang Shen; Pei-Ei Wu; Hui-Chun Wang; Diana Eccles; D Gareth Evans; Julian Peto; Olivia Fletcher; Nichola Johnson; Sheila Seal; Michael R Stratton; Nazneen Rahman; Georgia Chenevix-Trench; Stig E Bojesen; Børge G Nordestgaard; Christen K Axelsson; Montserrat Garcia-Closas; Louise Brinton; Stephen Chanock; Jolanta Lissowska; Beata Peplonska; Heli Nevanlinna; Rainer Fagerholm; Hannaleena Eerola; Daehee Kang; Keun-Young Yoo; Dong-Young Noh; Sei-Hyun Ahn; David J Hunter; Susan E Hankinson; David G Cox; Per Hall; Sara Wedren; Jianjun Liu; Yen-Ling Low; Natalia Bogdanova; Peter Schürmann; Thilo Dörk; Rob A E M Tollenaar; Catharina E Jacobi; Peter Devilee; Jan G M Klijn; Alice J Sigurdson; Michele M Doody; Bruce H Alexander; Jinghui Zhang; Angela Cox; Ian W Brock; Gordon MacPherson; Malcolm W R Reed; Fergus J Couch; Ellen L Goode; Janet E Olson; Hanne Meijers-Heijboer; Ans van den Ouweland; André Uitterlinden; Fernando Rivadeneira; Roger L Milne; Gloria Ribas; Anna Gonzalez-Neira; Javier Benitez; John L Hopper; Margaret McCredie; Melissa Southey; Graham G Giles; Chris Schroen; Christina Justenhoven; Hiltrud Brauch; Ute Hamann; Yon-Dschun Ko; Amanda B Spurdle; Jonathan Beesley; Xiaoqing Chen; Arto Mannermaa; Veli-Matti Kosma; Vesa Kataja; Jaana Hartikainen; Nicholas E Day; David R Cox; Bruce A J Ponder Journal: Nature Date: 2007-06-28 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Yirong Wu; Jun Fan; Peggy Peissig; Richard Berg; Ahmad Pahlavan Tafti; Jie Yin; Ming Yuan; David Page; Jennifer Cox; Elizabeth S Burnside Journal: Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng Date: 2018-03-07
Authors: Yirong Wu; Craig K Abbey; Jie Liu; Irene Ong; Peggy Peissig; Adedayo A Onitilo; Jun Fan; Ming Yuan; Elizabeth S Burnside Journal: Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng Date: 2016-03-24
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
Authors: Jun Fan; Yirong Wu; Ming Yuan; David Page; Jie Liu; Irene M Ong; Peggy Peissig; Elizabeth Burnside Journal: J Mach Learn Res Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 3.654
Authors: Shara I Feld; Jun Fan; Ming Yuan; Yirong Wu; Kaitlin M Woo; Roxana Alexandridis; Elizabeth S Burnside Journal: AMIA Jt Summits Transl Sci Proc Date: 2018-05-18
Authors: Pavol Zubor; Peter Kubatka; Karol Kajo; Zuzana Dankova; Hubert Polacek; Tibor Bielik; Erik Kudela; Marek Samec; Alena Liskova; Dominika Vlcakova; Tatiana Kulkovska; Igor Stastny; Veronika Holubekova; Jan Bujnak; Zuzana Laucekova; Dietrich Büsselberg; Mariusz Adamek; Walther Kuhn; Jan Danko; Olga Golubnitschaja Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2019-06-13 Impact factor: 5.923