Ryan D Frank1, Stacey J Winham1, Robert A Vierkant1, Marlene H Frost2, Derek C Radisky3, Karthik Ghosh4, Kathleen R Brandt5, Mark E Sherman6, Daniel W Visscher7, Lynn C Hartmann2, Amy C Degnim2,8, Celine M Vachon9. 1. Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 2. Woman's Cancer Program, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 3. Cancer Biology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida. 4. General Internal Medicine, Breast Diagnostic Clinic, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 5. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 6. Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida. 7. Anatomic Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 8. Breast, Endocrine, Metabolic, and GI Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 9. Division of Epidemiology, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: More than 1.5 million women per year have a benign breast biopsy resulting in concern about their future breast cancer (BC) risk. This study examined the performance of 2 BC risk models that integrate clinical and histologic findings in this population. METHODS: The BC risk at 5 and 10 years was estimated with the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) and Benign Breast Disease to Breast Cancer (BBD-BC) models for women diagnosed with benign breast disease (BBD) at the Mayo Clinic from 1997 to 2001. Women with BBD were eligible for the BBD-BC model, but the BCSC model also required a screening mammogram. Calibration and discrimination were assessed. RESULTS: Fifty-six cases of BC were diagnosed among the 2142 women with BBD (median age, 50 years) within 5 years (118 were diagnosed within 10 years). The BBD-BC model had slightly better calibration at 5 years (0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-1.21) versus 10 years (0.81; 95% CI, 0.70-1.00) but similar discrimination in the 2 time periods: 0.68 (95% CI, 0.60-0.75) and 0.66 (95% CI, 0.60-0.71), respectively. In contrast, among the 1089 women with screening mammograms (98 cases of BC within 10 years), the BCSC model had better calibration (0.94; 95% CI, 0.85-1.43) and discrimination (0.63; 95% CI, 0.56-0.71) at 10 years versus 5 years (calibration, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.94-2.25; discrimination, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.46-0.71) where discrimination was not different from chance. CONCLUSIONS: The BCSC and BBD-BC models were validated in the Mayo BBD cohort, although their performance differed by 5-year risk versus 10-year risk. Further enhancement of these models is needed to provide accurate BC risk estimates for women with BBD.
BACKGROUND: More than 1.5 million women per year have a benign breast biopsy resulting in concern about their future breast cancer (BC) risk. This study examined the performance of 2 BC risk models that integrate clinical and histologic findings in this population. METHODS: The BC risk at 5 and 10 years was estimated with the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) and Benign Breast Disease to Breast Cancer (BBD-BC) models for women diagnosed with benign breast disease (BBD) at the Mayo Clinic from 1997 to 2001. Women with BBD were eligible for the BBD-BC model, but the BCSC model also required a screening mammogram. Calibration and discrimination were assessed. RESULTS: Fifty-six cases of BC were diagnosed among the 2142 women with BBD (median age, 50 years) within 5 years (118 were diagnosed within 10 years). The BBD-BC model had slightly better calibration at 5 years (0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-1.21) versus 10 years (0.81; 95% CI, 0.70-1.00) but similar discrimination in the 2 time periods: 0.68 (95% CI, 0.60-0.75) and 0.66 (95% CI, 0.60-0.71), respectively. In contrast, among the 1089 women with screening mammograms (98 cases of BC within 10 years), the BCSC model had better calibration (0.94; 95% CI, 0.85-1.43) and discrimination (0.63; 95% CI, 0.56-0.71) at 10 years versus 5 years (calibration, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.94-2.25; discrimination, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.46-0.71) where discrimination was not different from chance. CONCLUSIONS: The BCSC and BBD-BC models were validated in the Mayo BBD cohort, although their performance differed by 5-year risk versus 10-year risk. Further enhancement of these models is needed to provide accurate BC risk estimates for women with BBD.
Authors: Tia R Milanese; Lynn C Hartmann; Thomas A Sellers; Marlene H Frost; Robert A Vierkant; Shaun D Maloney; V Shane Pankratz; Amy C Degnim; Celine M Vachon; Carol A Reynolds; Romayne A Thompson; L Joseph Melton; Ellen L Goode; Daniel W Visscher Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2006-11-15 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Celine M Vachon; V Shane Pankratz; Christopher G Scott; Lothar Haeberle; Elad Ziv; Matthew R Jensen; Kathleen R Brandt; Dana H Whaley; Janet E Olson; Katharina Heusinger; Carolin C Hack; Sebastian M Jud; Matthias W Beckmann; Ruediger Schulz-Wendtland; Jeffrey A Tice; Aaron D Norman; Julie M Cunningham; Kristen S Purrington; Douglas F Easton; Thomas A Sellers; Karla Kerlikowske; Peter A Fasching; Fergus J Couch Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2015-03-04 Impact factor: 13.506
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
Authors: David L Page; Peggy A Schuyler; William D Dupont; Roy A Jensen; W Dale Plummer; Jean F Simpson Journal: Lancet Date: 2003-01-11 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: V Shane Pankratz; Lynn C Hartmann; Amy C Degnim; Robert A Vierkant; Karthik Ghosh; Celine M Vachon; Marlene H Frost; Shaun D Maloney; Carol Reynolds; Judy C Boughey Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-10-14 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Nur Zeinomar; Kelly-Anne Phillips; Mary B Daly; Roger L Milne; Gillian S Dite; Robert J MacInnis; Yuyan Liao; Rebecca D Kehm; Julia A Knight; Melissa C Southey; Wendy K Chung; Graham G Giles; Sue-Anne McLachlan; Michael L Friedlander; Prue C Weideman; Gord Glendon; Stephanie Nesci; Irene L Andrulis; Saundra S Buys; Esther M John; John L Hopper; Mary Beth Terry Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2019-02-20 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Sarah J Nyante; Linn Abraham; Erin J Aiello Bowles; Christoph I Lee; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana L Miglioretti; Brian L Sprague; Louise M Henderson Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2022-07-01 Impact factor: 4.090
Authors: Stacey J Winham; Chen Wang; Ethan P Heinzen; Aditya Bhagwate; Yuanhang Liu; Samantha J McDonough; Melody L Stallings-Mann; Marlene H Frost; Robert A Vierkant; Lori A Denison; Jodi M Carter; Mark E Sherman; Derek C Radisky; Amy C Degnim; Julie M Cunningham Journal: BMC Med Genomics Date: 2021-07-14 Impact factor: 3.063