Parichoy Pal Choudhury1, Mark N Brook2, Amber N Hurson1,3, Andrew Lee4, Charlotta V Mulder1, Penny Coulson2, Minouk J Schoemaker2, Michael E Jones2, Anthony J Swerdlow2,5, Nilanjan Chatterjee6, Antonis C Antoniou4, Montserrat Garcia-Closas7. 1. Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute of Health, 9609 Medical Center Drive 7E-342, Rockville, MD, 20850, USA. 2. Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK. 3. Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 4. Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. 5. Division of Breast Cancer Research, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK. 6. Department of Biostatistics, The Johns Hopkins University, MD, Baltimore, USA. 7. Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute of Health, 9609 Medical Center Drive 7E-342, Rockville, MD, 20850, USA. montserrat.garcia-closas@nih.gov.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA) and the Tyrer-Cuzick breast cancer risk prediction models are commonly used in clinical practice and have recently been extended to include polygenic risk scores (PRS). In addition, BOADICEA has also been extended to include reproductive and lifestyle factors, which were already part of Tyrer-Cuzick model. We conducted a comparative prospective validation of these models after incorporating the recently developed 313-variant PRS. METHODS: Calibration and discrimination of 5-year absolute risk was assessed in a nested case-control sample of 1337 women of European ancestry (619 incident breast cancer cases) aged 23-75 years from the Generations Study. RESULTS: The extended BOADICEA model with reproductive/lifestyle factors and PRS was well calibrated across risk deciles; expected-to-observed ratio (E/O) at the highest risk decile :0.97 (95 % CI 0.51 - 1.86) for women younger than 50 years and 1.09 (0.66 - 1.80) for women 50 years or older. Adding reproductive/lifestyle factors and PRS to the BOADICEA model improved discrimination modestly in younger women (area under the curve (AUC) 69.7 % vs. 69.1%) and substantially in older women (AUC 64.6 % vs. 56.8%). The Tyrer-Cuzick model with PRS showed evidence of overestimation at the highest risk decile: E/O = 1.54(0.81 - 2.92) for younger and 1.73 (1.03 - 2.90) for older women. CONCLUSION: The extended BOADICEA model identified women in a European-ancestry population at elevated breast cancer risk more accurately than the Tyrer-Cuzick model with PRS. With the increasing availability of PRS, these analyses can inform choice of risk models incorporating PRS for risk stratified breast cancer prevention among women of European ancestry.
BACKGROUND: The Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA) and the Tyrer-Cuzick breast cancer risk prediction models are commonly used in clinical practice and have recently been extended to include polygenic risk scores (PRS). In addition, BOADICEA has also been extended to include reproductive and lifestyle factors, which were already part of Tyrer-Cuzick model. We conducted a comparative prospective validation of these models after incorporating the recently developed 313-variant PRS. METHODS: Calibration and discrimination of 5-year absolute risk was assessed in a nested case-control sample of 1337 women of European ancestry (619 incident breast cancer cases) aged 23-75 years from the Generations Study. RESULTS: The extended BOADICEA model with reproductive/lifestyle factors and PRS was well calibrated across risk deciles; expected-to-observed ratio (E/O) at the highest risk decile :0.97 (95 % CI 0.51 - 1.86) for women younger than 50 years and 1.09 (0.66 - 1.80) for women 50 years or older. Adding reproductive/lifestyle factors and PRS to the BOADICEA model improved discrimination modestly in younger women (area under the curve (AUC) 69.7 % vs. 69.1%) and substantially in older women (AUC 64.6 % vs. 56.8%). The Tyrer-Cuzick model with PRS showed evidence of overestimation at the highest risk decile: E/O = 1.54(0.81 - 2.92) for younger and 1.73 (1.03 - 2.90) for older women. CONCLUSION: The extended BOADICEA model identified women in a European-ancestry population at elevated breast cancer risk more accurately than the Tyrer-Cuzick model with PRS. With the increasing availability of PRS, these analyses can inform choice of risk models incorporating PRS for risk stratified breast cancer prevention among women of European ancestry.
Entities:
Keywords:
Absolute risk; BOADICEA; Breast cancer; IBIS; Model validation; Prospective cohort; Risk prediction; Tyrer-Cuzick
Authors: Andrew J Lee; Alex P Cunningham; Marc Tischkowitz; Jacques Simard; Paul D Pharoah; Douglas F Easton; Antonis C Antoniou Journal: Genet Med Date: 2016-04-14 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Amber N Hurson; Parichoy Pal Choudhury; Chi Gao; Anika Hüsing; Mikael Eriksson; Min Shi; Michael E Jones; D Gareth R Evans; Roger L Milne; Mia M Gaudet; Celine M Vachon; Daniel I Chasman; Douglas F Easton; Marjanka K Schmidt; Peter Kraft; Montserrat Garcia-Closas; Nilanjan Chatterjee Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2021-03-23 Impact factor: 9.685
Authors: Andrew Lee; Xin Yang; Jonathan Tyrer; Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj; Andy Ryan; Nasim Mavaddat; Alex P Cunningham; Tim Carver; Stephanie Archer; Goska Leslie; Jatinder Kalsi; Faiza Gaba; Ranjit Manchanda; Simon Gayther; Susan J Ramus; Fiona M Walter; Marc Tischkowitz; Ian Jacobs; Usha Menon; Douglas F Easton; Paul Pharoah; Antonis C Antoniou Journal: J Med Genet Date: 2021-11-29 Impact factor: 5.941
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: Hannah Wand; Samuel A Lambert; Cecelia Tamburro; Michael A Iacocca; Jack W O'Sullivan; Catherine Sillari; Iftikhar J Kullo; Robb Rowley; Jacqueline S Dron; Deanna Brockman; Eric Venner; Mark I McCarthy; Antonis C Antoniou; Douglas F Easton; Robert A Hegele; Amit V Khera; Nilanjan Chatterjee; Charles Kooperberg; Karen Edwards; Katherine Vlessis; Kim Kinnear; John N Danesh; Helen Parkinson; Erin M Ramos; Megan C Roberts; Kelly E Ormond; Muin J Khoury; A Cecile J W Janssens; Katrina A B Goddard; Peter Kraft; Jaqueline A L MacArthur; Michael Inouye; Genevieve L Wojcik Journal: Nature Date: 2021-03-10 Impact factor: 69.504
Authors: Tim Carver; Simon Hartley; Andrew Lee; Alex P Cunningham; Stephanie Archer; Chantal Babb de Villiers; Jonathan Roberts; Rod Ruston; Fiona M Walter; Marc Tischkowitz; Douglas F Easton; Antonis C Antoniou Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2020-12-17 Impact factor: 4.090
Authors: Elizabeth A Hibler; Angela J Fought; Kiarri N Kershaw; Rebecca Molsberry; Virginia Nowakowski; Deborah Lindner Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2022-02-24 Impact factor: 7.076