Anika Hüsing1, Anne S Quante2, Jenny Chang-Claude1,3, Krasimira Aleksandrova4, Rudolf Kaaks1, Ruth M Pfeiffer5. 1. Division of Cancer Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Im Neuenheimer Feld 581, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. 2. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Klinikum rechts der Isar der Technischen Universität München, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany. 3. Cancer Epidemiology Group, University Cancer Center Hamburg, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 4. Group of Nutrition, Immunity and Metabolism, Department of Nutrition and Gerontology, German Institute of Human Nutrition, Potsdam-Rehbruecke, Arthur-Scheunert-Allee 114-116, 14558, Nuthetal, Germany. 5. Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, NIH, HHS, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Bethesda, MD, 20892, USA. pfeiffer@mail.nih.gov.
Abstract
PURPOSE: There are no models for German women that predict absolute risk of invasive breast cancer (BC), i.e., the probability of developing BC over a prespecified time period, given a woman's age and characteristics, while accounting for competing risks. We thus validated two absolute BC risk models (BCRAT, BCRmod) developed for US women in German women. BCRAT uses a woman's medical, reproductive, and BC family history; BCRmod adds modifiable risk factors (body mass index, hormone replacement therapy and alcohol use). METHODS: We assessed model calibration by comparing observed BC numbers (O) to expected numbers (E) computed from BCRmod/BCRAT for German women enrolled in the prospective European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC), and after updating the models with German BC incidence/competing mortality rates. We also compared 1-year BC risk predicted for all German women using the German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Adults (DEGS) with overall German BC incidence. Discriminatory performance was quantified by the area under the receiver operator characteristics curve (AUC). RESULTS: Among 22,098 EPIC-Germany women aged 40+ years, 745 BCs occurred (median follow-up: 11.9 years). Both models had good calibration for total follow-up, EBCRmod/O = 1.08 (95% confidence interval: 0.95-1.21), and EBCRAT/O = 0.99(0.87-1.11), and over 5 years. Compared to German BC incidence rates, both models somewhat overestimated 1-year risk for women aged 55+ and 70+ years. For total follow-up, AUCBCRmod = 0.61(0.58-0.63) and AUCBCRAT = 0.58(0.56-0.61), with similar values for 5-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: US BC risk models showed adequate calibration in German women. Discriminatory performance was comparable to that in US women. These models thus could be applied for risk prediction in German women.
PURPOSE: There are no models for German women that predict absolute risk of invasive breast cancer (BC), i.e., the probability of developing BC over a prespecified time period, given a woman's age and characteristics, while accounting for competing risks. We thus validated two absolute BC risk models (BCRAT, BCRmod) developed for US women in German women. BCRAT uses a woman's medical, reproductive, and BC family history; BCRmod adds modifiable risk factors (body mass index, hormone replacement therapy and alcohol use). METHODS: We assessed model calibration by comparing observed BC numbers (O) to expected numbers (E) computed from BCRmod/BCRAT for German women enrolled in the prospective European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC), and after updating the models with German BC incidence/competing mortality rates. We also compared 1-year BC risk predicted for all German women using the German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Adults (DEGS) with overall German BC incidence. Discriminatory performance was quantified by the area under the receiver operator characteristics curve (AUC). RESULTS: Among 22,098 EPIC-Germany women aged 40+ years, 745 BCs occurred (median follow-up: 11.9 years). Both models had good calibration for total follow-up, EBCRmod/O = 1.08 (95% confidence interval: 0.95-1.21), and EBCRAT/O = 0.99(0.87-1.11), and over 5 years. Compared to German BC incidence rates, both models somewhat overestimated 1-year risk for women aged 55+ and 70+ years. For total follow-up, AUCBCRmod = 0.61(0.58-0.63) and AUCBCRAT = 0.58(0.56-0.61), with similar values for 5-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: US BC risk models showed adequate calibration in German women. Discriminatory performance was comparable to that in US women. These models thus could be applied for risk prediction in German women.
Entities:
Keywords:
Absolute risk; Breast cancer incidence; Model transportability
Authors: J P Costantino; M H Gail; D Pee; S Anderson; C K Redmond; J Benichou; H S Wieand Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1999-09-15 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Mitchell H Gail; Joseph P Costantino; David Pee; Melissa Bondy; Lisa Newman; Mano Selvan; Garnet L Anderson; Kathleen E Malone; Polly A Marchbanks; Worta McCaskill-Stevens; Sandra A Norman; Michael S Simon; Robert Spirtas; Giske Ursin; Leslie Bernstein Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2007-11-27 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: J Ferlay; M Colombet; I Soerjomataram; T Dyba; G Randi; M Bettio; A Gavin; O Visser; F Bray Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2018-08-09 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Kuanrong Li; Garnet Anderson; Vivian Viallon; Patrick Arveux; Marina Kvaskoff; Agnès Fournier; Vittorio Krogh; Rosario Tumino; Maria-Jose Sánchez; Eva Ardanaz; María-Dolores Chirlaque; Antonio Agudo; David C Muller; Todd Smith; Ioanna Tzoulaki; Timothy J Key; Bas Bueno-de-Mesquita; Antonia Trichopoulou; Christina Bamia; Philippos Orfanos; Rudolf Kaaks; Anika Hüsing; Renée T Fortner; Anne Zeleniuch-Jacquotte; Malin Sund; Christina C Dahm; Kim Overvad; Dagfinn Aune; Elisabete Weiderpass; Isabelle Romieu; Elio Riboli; Marc J Gunter; Laure Dossus; Ross Prentice; Pietro Ferrari Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2018-12-03 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: Ruth M Pfeiffer; Yikyung Park; Aimée R Kreimer; James V Lacey; David Pee; Robert T Greenlee; Saundra S Buys; Albert Hollenbeck; Bernard Rosner; Mitchell H Gail; Patricia Hartge Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2013-07-30 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Paige Maas; Myrto Barrdahl; Amit D Joshi; Paul L Auer; Mia M Gaudet; Roger L Milne; Fredrick R Schumacher; William F Anderson; David Check; Subham Chattopadhyay; Laura Baglietto; Christine D Berg; Stephen J Chanock; David G Cox; Jonine D Figueroa; Mitchell H Gail; Barry I Graubard; Christopher A Haiman; Susan E Hankinson; Robert N Hoover; Claudine Isaacs; Laurence N Kolonel; Loic Le Marchand; I-Min Lee; Sara Lindström; Kim Overvad; Isabelle Romieu; Maria-Jose Sanchez; Melissa C Southey; Daniel O Stram; Rosario Tumino; Tyler J VanderWeele; Walter C Willett; Shumin Zhang; Julie E Buring; Federico Canzian; Susan M Gapstur; Brian E Henderson; David J Hunter; Graham G Giles; Ross L Prentice; Regina G Ziegler; Peter Kraft; Montse Garcia-Closas; Nilanjan Chatterjee Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2016-10-01 Impact factor: 31.777
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