Literature DB >> 31556450

Performance of Breast Cancer Risk-Assessment Models in a Large Mammography Cohort.

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.   

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.
© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 31556450      PMCID: PMC7225681          DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djz177

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


  26 in total

1.  Probability of carrying a mutation of breast-ovarian cancer gene BRCA1 based on family history.

Authors:  D A Berry; G Parmigiani; J Sanchez; J Schildkraut; E Winer
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1997-02-05       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Projecting Individualized Absolute Invasive Breast Cancer Risk in US Hispanic Women.

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

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

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

4.  10-year performance of four models of breast cancer risk: a validation study.

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

5.  Predicting risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women by hormone receptor status.

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

6.  Simplifying clinical use of the genetic risk prediction model BRCAPRO.

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

7.  Using clinical factors and mammographic breast density to estimate breast cancer risk: development and validation of a new predictive model.

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

8.  Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Using Clinical Models and 77 Independent Risk-Associated SNPs for Women Aged Under 50 Years: Australian Breast Cancer Family Registry.

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

9.  Assessment of performance of the Gail model for predicting breast cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.

Authors:  Xin Wang; Yubei Huang; Lian Li; Hongji Dai; Fengju Song; Kexin Chen
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2018-03-13       Impact factor: 6.466

10.  Long-term Accuracy of Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Combining Classic Risk Factors and Breast Density.

Authors:  Adam R Brentnall; Jack Cuzick; Diana S M Buist; Erin J Aiello Bowles
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2018-09-13       Impact factor: 31.777

View more
  11 in total

1.  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

Review 2.  Artificial intelligence and imaging for risk prediction of pancreatic cancer: a narrative review.

Authors:  Touseef Ahmad Qureshi; Sehrish Javed; Tabasom Sarmadi; Stephen Jacob Pandol; Debiao Li
Journal:  Chin Clin Oncol       Date:  2022-02-09

3.  Cumulative Advanced Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Model Developed in a Screening Mammography Population.

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

4.  Prospective Evaluation over 15 Years of Six Breast Cancer Risk Models.

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

5.  The Value of Tyrer-Cuzick Versus Gail Risk Modeling in Predicting Benefit from Screening MRI in Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Anthanasios Sevdalis; Xiaoyan Deng; Dipankar Bandyopadhyay; Kandace P McGuire
Journal:  Eur J Breast Health       Date:  2021-12-30

Review 6.  Cancer Progress and Priorities: Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Serena C Houghton; Susan E Hankinson
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2021-05       Impact factor: 4.090

7.  Validation of Breast Cancer Risk Models by Race/Ethnicity, Family History and Molecular Subtypes.

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

8.  Lifestyle, Behavioral, and Dietary Risk Factors in Relation to Mammographic Breast Density in Women at High Risk for Breast Cancer.

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

9.  Differences in breast cancer risk after benign breast disease by type of screening diagnosis.

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

10.  Association between breast cancer risk and disease aggressiveness: Characterizing underlying gene expression patterns.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.