Literature DB >> 33481864

A streamlined model for use in clinical breast cancer risk assessment maintains predictive power and is further improved with inclusion of a polygenic risk score.

Richard Allman1,2, Erika Spaeth3, John Lai1,2, Susan J Gross3, John L Hopper2.   

Abstract

Five-year absolute breast cancer risk prediction models are required to comply with national guidelines regarding risk reduction regimens. Models including the Gail model are under-utilized in the general population for various reasons, including difficulty in accurately completing some clinical fields. The purpose of this study was to determine if a streamlined risk model could be designed without substantial loss in performance. Only the clinical risk factors that were easily answered by women will be retained and combined with an objective validated polygenic risk score (PRS) to ultimately improve overall compliance with professional recommendations. We first undertook a review of a series of 2,339 Caucasian, African American and Hispanic women from the USA who underwent clinical testing. We first used deidentified test request forms to identify the clinical risk factors that were best answered by women in a clinical setting and then compared the 5-year risks for the full model and the streamlined model in this clinical series. We used OPERA analysis on previously published case-control data from 11,924 Gail model samples to determine clinical risk factors to include in a streamlined model: first degree family history and age that could then be combined with the PRS. Next, to ensure that the addition of PRS to the streamlined model was indeed beneficial, we compared risk stratification using the Streamlined model with and without PRS for the existing case-control datasets comprising 1,313 cases and 10,611 controls of African-American (n = 7421), Caucasian (n = 1155) and Hispanic (n = 3348) women, using the area under the curve to determine model performance. The improvement in risk discrimination from adding the PRS risk score to the Streamlined model was 52%, 46% and 62% for African-American, Caucasian and Hispanic women, respectively, based on changes in log OPERA. There was no statistically significant difference in mean risk scores between the Gail model plus risk PRS compared to the Streamlined model plus PRS. This study demonstrates that validated PRS can be used to streamline a clinical test for primary care practice without diminishing test performance. Importantly, by eliminating risk factors that women find hard to recall or that require obtaining medical records, this model may facilitate increased clinical adoption of 5-year risk breast cancer risk prediction test in keeping with national standards and guidelines for breast cancer risk reduction.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33481864      PMCID: PMC7822550          DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245375

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS One        ISSN: 1932-6203            Impact factor:   3.240


  29 in total

Review 1.  Patient decisions about breast cancer chemoprevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Mary E Ropka; Jess Keim; John T Philbrick
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-05-10       Impact factor: 44.544

2.  Cancer statistics, 2019.

Authors:  Rebecca L Siegel; Kimberly D Miller; Ahmedin Jemal
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2019-01-08       Impact factor: 508.702

3.  Addressing barriers to uptake of breast cancer chemoprevention for patients and providers.

Authors:  Katherine D Crew
Journal:  Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book       Date:  2015

4.  Medication Use to Reduce Risk of Breast Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Authors:  Douglas K Owens; Karina W Davidson; Alex H Krist; Michael J Barry; Michael Cabana; Aaron B Caughey; Chyke A Doubeni; John W Epling; Martha Kubik; C Seth Landefeld; Carol M Mangione; Lori Pbert; Michael Silverstein; Chien-Wen Tseng; John B Wong
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2019-09-03       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Assessment of the accuracy of the Gail model in women with atypical hyperplasia.

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

6.  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

7.  Admixture Mapping of African-American Women in the AMBER Consortium Identifies New Loci for Breast Cancer and Estrogen-Receptor Subtypes.

Authors:  Edward A Ruiz-Narváez; Lara Sucheston-Campbell; Jeannette T Bensen; Song Yao; Stephen Haddad; Christopher A Haiman; Elisa V Bandera; Esther M John; Leslie Bernstein; Jennifer J Hu; Regina G Ziegler; Sandra L Deming; Andrew F Olshan; Christine B Ambrosone; Julie R Palmer; Kathryn L Lunetta
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2016-09-21       Impact factor: 4.599

8.  SNPs and breast cancer risk prediction for African American and Hispanic women.

Authors:  Richard Allman; Gillian S Dite; John L Hopper; Ora Gordon; Athena Starlard-Davenport; Rowan Chlebowski; Charles Kooperberg
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2015-11-20       Impact factor: 4.872

9.  Relationship of Predicted Risk of Developing Invasive Breast Cancer, as Assessed with Three Models, and Breast Cancer Mortality among Breast Cancer Patients.

Authors:  Mark E Sherman; Laura Ichikawa; Ruth M Pfeiffer; Diana L Miglioretti; Karla Kerlikowske; Jeffery Tice; Pamela M Vacek; Gretchen L Gierach
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-08-25       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Breast Cancer Risk From Modifiable and Nonmodifiable Risk Factors Among White Women in the United States.

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

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Role of Polygenic Risk Score in Cancer Precision Medicine of Non-European Populations: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Howard Lopes Ribeiro Junior; Lázaro Antônio Campanha Novaes; José Guilherme Datorre; Daniel Antunes Moreno; Rui Manuel Reis
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2022-08-04       Impact factor: 3.109

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.