Literature DB >> 29676945

Model for Predicting Breast Cancer Risk in Women With Atypical Hyperplasia.

Amy C Degnim1, Stacey J Winham1, Ryan D Frank1, V Shane Pankratz1, William D Dupont1, Robert A Vierkant1, Marlene H Frost1, Tanya L Hoskin1, Celine M Vachon1, Karthik Ghosh1, Tina J Hieken1, Jodi M Carter1, Lori A Denison1, Brendan Broderick1, Lynn C Hartmann1, Daniel W Visscher1, Derek C Radisky1.   

Abstract

Purpose Women with atypical hyperplasia (AH) on breast biopsy have an aggregate increased risk of breast cancer (BC), but existing risk prediction models do not provide accurate individualized estimates of risk in this subset of high-risk women. Here, we used the Mayo benign breast disease cohort to develop and validate a model of BC risk prediction that is specifically for women with AH, which we have designated as AH-BC. Patients and Methods Retrospective cohorts of women age 18 to 85 years with pathologically confirmed benign AH from Rochester, MN, and Nashville, TN, were used for model development and external validation, respectively. Clinical risk factors and histologic features of the tissue biopsy were selected using L1-penalized Cox proportional hazards regression. Identified features were included in a Fine and Gray regression model to estimate BC risk, with death as a competing risk. Model discrimination and calibration were assessed in the model-building set and an external validation set. Results The model-building set consisted of 699 women with AH, 142 of whom developed BC (median follow-up, 8.1 years), and the external validation set consisted of 461 women with 114 later BC events (median follow-up, 11.4 years). The final AH-BC model included three covariates: age at biopsy, age at biopsy squared, and number of foci of AH. At 10 years, the AH-BC model demonstrated good discrimination (0.63 [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.70]) and calibration (0.87 [95% CI, 0.66 to 1.24]). In the external validation set, the model showed acceptable discrimination (0.59 [95% CI, 0.51 to 0.67]) and calibration (0.91 [95% CI, 0.65 to 1.42]). Conclusion We have created a new model with which to refine BC risk prediction for women with AH. The AH-BC model demonstrates good discrimination and calibration, and it validates in an external data set.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29676945      PMCID: PMC6008107          DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2017.75.9480

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   44.544


  31 in total

1.  Performance of common genetic variants in breast-cancer risk models.

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

2.  Model for individualized prediction of breast cancer risk after a benign breast biopsy.

Authors:  V Shane Pankratz; Amy C Degnim; Ryan D Frank; Marlene H Frost; Daniel W Visscher; Robert A Vierkant; Tina J Hieken; Karthik Ghosh; Yaman Tarabishy; Celine M Vachon; Derek C Radisky; Lynn C Hartmann
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-01-26       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  Evaluation of the Tyrer-Cuzick (International Breast Cancer Intervention Study) model for breast cancer risk prediction in women with atypical hyperplasia.

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

4.  Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually.

Authors:  M H Gail; L A Brinton; D P Byar; D K Corle; S B Green; C Schairer; J J Mulvihill
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1989-12-20       Impact factor: 13.506

5.  A breast cancer prediction model incorporating familial and personal risk factors.

Authors:  Jonathan Tyrer; Stephen W Duffy; Jack Cuzick
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2004-04-15       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  A prospective study of the development of breast cancer in 16,692 women with benign breast disease.

Authors:  C L Carter; D K Corle; M S Micozzi; A Schatzkin; P R Taylor
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1988-09       Impact factor: 4.897

7.  Predicting the 30-year risk of cardiovascular disease: the framingham heart study.

Authors:  Michael J Pencina; Ralph B D'Agostino; Martin G Larson; Joseph M Massaro; Ramachandran S Vasan
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2009-06-08       Impact factor: 29.690

8.  Prediction of incident diabetes mellitus in middle-aged adults: the Framingham Offspring Study.

Authors:  Peter W F Wilson; James B Meigs; Lisa Sullivan; Caroline S Fox; David M Nathan; Ralph B D'Agostino
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2007-05-28

9.  Subsequent Breast Cancer Risk Following Diagnosis of Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia on Needle Biopsy.

Authors:  Tehillah S Menes; Karla Kerlikowske; Jane Lange; Shabnam Jaffer; Robert Rosenberg; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2017-01-01       Impact factor: 31.777

10.  Mammographic breast density and risk of breast cancer in women with atypical hyperplasia: an observational cohort study from the Mayo Clinic Benign Breast Disease (BBD) cohort.

Authors:  Robert A Vierkant; Amy C Degnim; Derek C Radisky; Daniel W Visscher; Ethan P Heinzen; Ryan D Frank; Stacey J Winham; Marlene H Frost; Christopher G Scott; Matthew R Jensen; Karthik Ghosh; Armando Manduca; Kathleen R Brandt; Dana H Whaley; Lynn C Hartmann; Celine M Vachon
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2017-01-31       Impact factor: 4.430

View more
  5 in total

1.  An Immune Model to Predict Prognosis of Breast Cancer Patients Receiving Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Based on Support Vector Machine.

Authors:  Mozhi Wang; Zhiyuan Pang; Yusong Wang; Mingke Cui; Litong Yao; Shuang Li; Mengshen Wang; Yanfu Zheng; Xiangyu Sun; Haoran Dong; Qiang Zhang; Yingying Xu
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-04-27       Impact factor: 6.244

Review 2.  Hidden analyses: a review of reporting practice and recommendations for more transparent reporting of initial data analyses.

Authors:  Marianne Huebner; Werner Vach; Saskia le Cessie; Carsten Oliver Schmidt; Lara Lusa
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2020-03-13       Impact factor: 4.615

3.  Applying probability calibration to ensemble methods to predict 2-year mortality in patients with DLBCL.

Authors:  Shuanglong Fan; Zhiqiang Zhao; Hongmei Yu; Lei Wang; Chuchu Zheng; Xueqian Huang; Zhenhuan Yang; Meng Xing; Qing Lu; Yanhong Luo
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2021-01-07       Impact factor: 2.796

4.  Development and Validation of a Simple-to-Use Nomogram for Predicting the Upgrade of Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia on Core Needle Biopsy in Ultrasound-Detected Breast Lesions.

Authors:  Yun-Xia Huang; Ya-Ling Chen; Shi-Ping Li; Ju-Ping Shen; Ke Zuo; Shi-Chong Zhou; Cai Chang
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-03-31       Impact factor: 6.244

5.  Integrated Analysis to Evaluate the Prognostic Value of Signature mRNAs in Glioblastoma Multiforme.

Authors:  Ji'an Yang; Long Wang; Zhou Xu; Liquan Wu; Baohui Liu; Junmin Wang; Daofeng Tian; Xiaoxing Xiong; Qianxue Chen
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2020-03-31       Impact factor: 4.599

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.