Anne Marie McCarthy1, Zoe Guan2,3, Michaela Welch4, Molly E Griffin5, Dorothy A Sippo6, Zhengyi Deng5, Suzanne B Coopey5, Ahmet Acar7, Alan Semine8, Giovanni Parmigiani2,3, Danielle Braun2,3, Kevin S Hughes5. 1. Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA. 2. Department of Biostatistics, Harvard University T H Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA. 3. Department of Data Sciences, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA. 4. Division of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA. 5. Division of Surgical Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA. 6. Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA. 7. Istanbul School of Medicine, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey. 8. Department of Radiology, Newton-Wellesley Hospital, Newton, MA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several breast cancer risk-assessment models exist. Few studies have evaluated predictive accuracy of multiple models in large screening populations. METHODS: We evaluated the performance of the BRCAPRO, Gail, Claus, Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC), and Tyrer-Cuzick models in predicting risk of breast cancer over 6 years among 35 921 women aged 40-84 years who underwent mammography screening at Newton-Wellesley Hospital from 2007 to 2009. We assessed model discrimination using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and assessed calibration by comparing the ratio of observed-to-expected (O/E) cases. We calculated the square root of the Brier score and positive and negative predictive values of each model. RESULTS: Our results confirmed the good calibration and comparable moderate discrimination of the BRCAPRO, Gail, Tyrer-Cuzick, and BCSC models. The Gail model had slightly better O/E ratio and AUC (O/E = 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.91 to 1.06, AUC = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.61 to 0.65) compared with BRCAPRO (O/E = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.88 to 1.02, AUC = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.59 to 0.63) and Tyrer-Cuzick (version 8, O/E = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.79 to 0.91, AUC = 0.62, 95% 0.60 to 0.64) in the full study population, and the BCSC model had the highest AUC among women with available breast density information (O/E = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.89 to 1.05, AUC = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.62 to 0.66). All models had poorer predictive accuracy for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive and triple-negative breast cancers than hormone receptor positive human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative breast cancers. CONCLUSIONS: In a large cohort of patients undergoing mammography screening, existing risk prediction models had similar, moderate predictive accuracy and good calibration overall. Models that incorporate additional genetic and nongenetic risk factors and estimate risk of tumor subtypes may further improve breast cancer risk prediction.
BACKGROUND: Several breast cancer risk-assessment models exist. Few studies have evaluated predictive accuracy of multiple models in large screening populations. METHODS: We evaluated the performance of the BRCAPRO, Gail, Claus, Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC), and Tyrer-Cuzick models in predicting risk of breast cancer over 6 years among 35 921 women aged 40-84 years who underwent mammography screening at Newton-Wellesley Hospital from 2007 to 2009. We assessed model discrimination using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and assessed calibration by comparing the ratio of observed-to-expected (O/E) cases. We calculated the square root of the Brier score and positive and negative predictive values of each model. RESULTS: Our results confirmed the good calibration and comparable moderate discrimination of the BRCAPRO, Gail, Tyrer-Cuzick, and BCSC models. The Gail model had slightly better O/E ratio and AUC (O/E = 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.91 to 1.06, AUC = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.61 to 0.65) compared with BRCAPRO (O/E = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.88 to 1.02, AUC = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.59 to 0.63) and Tyrer-Cuzick (version 8, O/E = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.79 to 0.91, AUC = 0.62, 95% 0.60 to 0.64) in the full study population, and the BCSC model had the highest AUC among women with available breast density information (O/E = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.89 to 1.05, AUC = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.62 to 0.66). All models had poorer predictive accuracy for humanepidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive and triple-negative breast cancers than hormone receptor positive humanepidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative breast cancers. CONCLUSIONS: In a large cohort of patients undergoing mammography screening, existing risk prediction models had similar, moderate predictive accuracy and good calibration overall. Models that incorporate additional genetic and nongenetic risk factors and estimate risk of tumor subtypes may further improve breast cancer risk prediction.
Authors: Matthew P Banegas; Esther M John; Martha L Slattery; Scarlett Lin Gomez; Mandi Yu; Andrea Z LaCroix; David Pee; Rowan T Chlebowski; Lisa M Hines; Cynthia A Thompson; Mitchell H Gail Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2016-12-20 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Parichoy Pal Choudhury; Amber N Wilcox; Mark N Brook; Yan Zhang; Thomas Ahearn; Nick Orr; Penny Coulson; Minouk J Schoemaker; Michael E Jones; Mitchell H Gail; Anthony J Swerdlow; Nilanjan Chatterjee; Montserrat Garcia-Closas Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2020-03-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Mary Beth Terry; Yuyan Liao; Alice S Whittemore; Nicole Leoce; Richard Buchsbaum; Nur Zeinomar; Gillian S Dite; Wendy K Chung; Julia A Knight; Melissa C Southey; Roger L Milne; David Goldgar; Graham G Giles; Sue-Anne McLachlan; Michael L Friedlander; Prue C Weideman; Gord Glendon; Stephanie Nesci; Irene L Andrulis; Esther M John; Kelly-Anne Phillips; Mary B Daly; Saundra S Buys; John L Hopper; Robert J MacInnis Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2019-02-21 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Rowan T Chlebowski; Garnet L Anderson; Dorothy S Lane; Aaron K Aragaki; Thomas Rohan; Shagufta Yasmeen; Gloria Sarto; Carol A Rosenberg; F Allan Hubbell Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2007-11-13 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Swati Biswas; Philamer Atienza; Jonathan Chipman; Kevin Hughes; Angelica M Gutierrez Barrera; Christopher I Amos; Banu Arun; Giovanni Parmigiani Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2013-05-21 Impact factor: 4.872
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: Gillian S Dite; Robert J MacInnis; Adrian Bickerstaffe; James G Dowty; Richard Allman; Carmel Apicella; Roger L Milne; Helen Tsimiklis; Kelly-Anne Phillips; Graham G Giles; Mary Beth Terry; Melissa C Southey; John L Hopper Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2015-12-16 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Karla Kerlikowske; Shuai Chen; Marzieh K Golmakani; Brian L Sprague; Jeffrey A Tice; Anna N A Tosteson; Garth H Rauscher; Louise M Henderson; Diana S M Buist; Janie M Lee; Charlotte C Gard; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2022-05-09 Impact factor: 11.816
Authors: Sherly X Li; Roger L Milne; Tú Nguyen-Dumont; Dallas R English; Graham G Giles; Melissa C Southey; Antonis C Antoniou; Andrew Lee; Ingrid Winship; John L Hopper; Mary Beth Terry; Robert J MacInnis Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-10-16 Impact factor: 6.575
Authors: Anne Marie McCarthy; Yi Liu; Sarah Ehsan; Zoe Guan; Jane Liang; Theodore Huang; Kevin Hughes; Alan Semine; Despina Kontos; Emily Conant; Constance Lehman; Katrina Armstrong; Danielle Braun; Giovanni Parmigiani; Jinbo Chen Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-12-23 Impact factor: 6.575
Authors: Thomas P Ahern; Brian L Sprague; Nicholas H Farina; Erin Tsai; Melissa Cuke; Despina Kontos; Marie E Wood Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2021-02-22 Impact factor: 4.090
Authors: Javier Louro; Marta Román; Margarita Posso; Laura Comerma; Carmen Vidal; Francina Saladié; Rodrigo Alcantara; Mar Sanchez; M Jesús Quintana; Javier Del Riego; Joana Ferrer; Lupe Peñalva; Xavier Bargalló; Miguel Prieto; María Sala; Xavier Castells Journal: Breast Date: 2020-10-03 Impact factor: 4.380
Authors: Emilio Ugalde-Morales; Felix Grassmann; Keith Humphreys; Jingmei Li; Mikael Eriksson; Nicholas P Tobin; Åke Borg; Johan Vallon-Christersson; Per Hall; Kamila Czene Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2020-09-05 Impact factor: 7.396