Literature DB >> 31165158

Comparative Validation of Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Models and Projections for Future Risk Stratification.

Parichoy Pal Choudhury1, Amber N Wilcox2,3, Mark N Brook4, Yan Zhang1, Thomas Ahearn2,3, Nick Orr1,5,6,7, Penny Coulson4, Minouk J Schoemaker4, Michael E Jones4, Mitchell H Gail2,3, Anthony J Swerdlow4,6, Nilanjan Chatterjee, Montserrat Garcia-Closas2,3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: External validation of risk models is critical for risk-stratified breast cancer prevention. We used the Individualized Coherent Absolute Risk Estimation (iCARE) as a flexible tool for risk model development and comparative model validation and to make projections for population risk stratification.
METHODS: Performance of two recently developed models, one based on the Breast and Prostate Cancer Cohort Consortium analysis (iCARE-BPC3) and another based on a literature review (iCARE-Lit), were compared with two established models (Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool and International Breast Cancer Intervention Study Model) based on classical risk factors in a UK-based cohort of 64 874 white non-Hispanic women (863 patients) age 35-74 years. Risk projections in a target population of US white non-Hispanic women age 50-70 years assessed potential improvements in risk stratification by adding mammographic breast density (MD) and polygenic risk score (PRS).
RESULTS: The best calibrated models were iCARE-Lit (expected to observed number of cases [E/O] = 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.87 to 1.11) for women younger than 50 years, and iCARE-BPC3 (E/O = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.93 to 1.09) for women 50 years or older. Risk projections using iCARE-BPC3 indicated classical risk factors can identify approximately 500 000 women at moderate to high risk (>3% 5-year risk) in the target population. Addition of MD and a 313-variant PRS is expected to increase this number to approximately 3.5 million women, and among them, approximately 153 000 are expected to develop invasive breast cancer within 5 years.
CONCLUSIONS: iCARE models based on classical risk factors perform similarly to or better than BCRAT or IBIS in white non-Hispanic women. Addition of MD and PRS can lead to substantial improvements in risk stratification. However, these integrated models require independent prospective validation before broad clinical applications. Published by Oxford University Press 2019. This work is written by US Government employees and is in the public domain in the US.

Entities:  

Year:  2020        PMID: 31165158     DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djz113

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst        ISSN: 0027-8874            Impact factor:   13.506


  28 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.  Choosing Breast Cancer Risk Models: Importance of Independent Validation.

Authors:  Mitchel H Gail
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2020-05-01       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Deep Learning vs Traditional Breast Cancer Risk Models to Support Risk-Based Mammography Screening.

Authors:  Constance D Lehman; Sarah Mercaldo; Leslie R Lamb; Tari A King; Leif W Ellisen; Michelle Specht; Rulla M Tamimi
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2022-10-06       Impact factor: 11.816

4.  The impact of scaling up access to treatment and imaging modalities on global disparities in breast cancer survival: a simulation-based analysis.

Authors:  Zachary J Ward; Rifat Atun; Hedvig Hricak; Kwanele Asante; Geraldine McGinty; Elizabeth J Sutton; Larry Norton; Andrew M Scott; Lawrence N Shulman
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2021-08-17       Impact factor: 54.433

5.  Reproductive history differs by molecular subtypes of breast cancer among women aged ≤ 50 years in Scotland diagnosed 2009-2016: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Anushri Chitkara; Ines Mesa-Eguiagaray; Sarah H Wild; Peter S Hall; David A Cameron; Andrew H Sims; Jonine D Figueroa
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2022-09-18       Impact factor: 4.624

6.  Will polygenic risk scores for cancer ever be clinically useful?

Authors:  Amit Sud; Clare Turnbull; Richard Houlston
Journal:  NPJ Precis Oncol       Date:  2021-05-21

7.  Polygenic Breast Cancer Risk for Women Veterans in the Million Veteran Program.

Authors:  Jessica Minnier; Nallakkandi Rajeevan; Lina Gao; Byung Park; Saiju Pyarajan; Paul Spellman; Sally G Haskell; Cynthia A Brandt; Shiuh-Wen Luoh
Journal:  JCO Precis Oncol       Date:  2021-07-21

8.  Evaluating Polygenic Risk Scores for Breast Cancer in Women of African Ancestry.

Authors:  Zhaohui Du; Guimin Gao; Babatunde Adedokun; Thomas Ahearn; Kathryn L Lunetta; Gary Zirpoli; Melissa A Troester; Edward A Ruiz-Narváez; Stephen A Haddad; Parichoy PalChoudhury; Jonine Figueroa; Esther M John; Leslie Bernstein; Wei Zheng; Jennifer J Hu; Regina G Ziegler; Sarah Nyante; Elisa V Bandera; Sue A Ingles; Nicholas Mancuso; Michael F Press; Sandra L Deming; Jorge L Rodriguez-Gil; Song Yao; Temidayo O Ogundiran; Oladosu Ojengbe; Manjeet K Bolla; Joe Dennis; Alison M Dunning; Douglas F Easton; Kyriaki Michailidou; Paul D P Pharoah; Dale P Sandler; Jack A Taylor; Qin Wang; Clarice R Weinberg; Cari M Kitahara; William Blot; Katherine L Nathanson; Anselm Hennis; Barbara Nemesure; Stefan Ambs; Lara E Sucheston-Campbell; Jeannette T Bensen; Stephen J Chanock; Andrew F Olshan; Christine B Ambrosone; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Joel Yarney; Baffour Awuah; Beatrice Wiafe-Addai; David V Conti; Julie R Palmer; Montserrat Garcia-Closas; Dezheng Huo; Christopher A Haiman
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2021-09-04       Impact factor: 11.816

9.  Risk of Breast Cancer Among Carriers of Pathogenic Variants in Breast Cancer Predisposition Genes Varies by Polygenic Risk Score.

Authors:  Chi Gao; Eric C Polley; Steven N Hart; Hongyan Huang; Chunling Hu; Rohan Gnanaolivu; Jenna Lilyquist; Nicholas J Boddicker; Jie Na; Christine B Ambrosone; Paul L Auer; Leslie Bernstein; Elizabeth S Burnside; A Heather Eliassen; Mia M Gaudet; Christopher Haiman; David J Hunter; Eric J Jacobs; Esther M John; Sara Lindström; Huiyan Ma; Susan L Neuhausen; Polly A Newcomb; Katie M O'Brien; Janet E Olson; Irene M Ong; Alpa V Patel; Julie R Palmer; Dale P Sandler; Rulla Tamimi; Jack A Taylor; Lauren R Teras; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Celine M Vachon; Clarice R Weinberg; Song Yao; Jeffrey N Weitzel; David E Goldgar; Susan M Domchek; Katherine L Nathanson; Fergus J Couch; Peter Kraft
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2021-06-08       Impact factor: 50.717

10.  Estimating the Breast Cancer Burden in Germany and Implications for Risk-based Screening.

Authors:  Anne S Quante; Anika Hüsing; Jenny Chang-Claude; Marion Kiechle; Rudolf Kaaks; Ruth M Pfeiffer
Journal:  Cancer Prev Res (Phila)       Date:  2021-03-05
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.