Literature DB >> 33978450

Distribution of Estimated Lifetime Breast Cancer Risk Among Women Undergoing Screening Mammography.

Bethany L Niell1,2, Bianca Augusto3, McKenzie McIntyre3, Claire C Conley3,4, Travis Gerke2, Richard Roetzheim5, Jennifer Garcia3, Susan T Vadaparampil3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE. Supplemental screening breast MRI is recommended for women with an estimated lifetime risk of breast cancer of greater than 20-25%. The performance of risk prediction models varies for each individual and across groups of women. The present study investigates the concordance of three breast cancer risk prediction models among women presenting for screening mammography. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. In this prospective study, we calculated the estimated lifetime risk of breast cancer using the modified Gail, Tyrer-Cuzick version 7, and BRCAPRO models for each woman who presented for screening mammography. Per American Cancer Society guidelines, for each woman the risk was categorized as less than 20% or 20% or greater as well as less than 25% or 25% or greater with use of each model. Venn diagrams were constructed to evaluate concordance across models. The McNemar test was used to test differences in risk group allocations between models, with p ≤ .05 considered to denote statistical significance. RESULTS. Of 3503 screening mammography patients who underwent risk stratification, 3219 (91.9%) were eligible for risk estimation using all three models. Using at least one model, 440 (13.7%) women had a lifetime risk of 20% or greater, including 390 women (12.1%) according to the Tyrer-Cuzick version 7 model, 18 (0.6%) according to the BRCAPRO model, and 141 (4.4%) according to the modified Gail model. Six women (0.2%) had a risk of 20% or greater according to all three models. Women were significantly more likely to be classified as having a high lifetime breast cancer risk by the Tyrer-Cuzick version 7 model compared with the modified Gail model, with thresholds of 20% or greater (odds ratio, 6.4; 95% CI, 4.7-8.7) or 25% or greater (odds ratio, 7.4; 95% CI, 4.7-11.9) used for both models. CONCLUSION. To identify women with a high lifetime breast cancer risk, practices should use estimates of lifetime breast cancer risk derived from multiple risk prediction models.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Gail model; Tyrer-Cuzick; breast cancer risk; risk stratification; supplemental screening

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33978450      PMCID: PMC9124592          DOI: 10.2214/AJR.20.23333

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  33 in total

1.  NCCN Guidelines Insights: Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian, Version 2.2017.

Authors:  Mary B Daly; Robert Pilarski; Michael Berry; Saundra S Buys; Meagan Farmer; Susan Friedman; Judy E Garber; Noah D Kauff; Seema Khan; Catherine Klein; Wendy Kohlmann; Allison Kurian; Jennifer K Litton; Lisa Madlensky; Sofia D Merajver; Kenneth Offit; Tuya Pal; Gwen Reiser; Kristen Mahoney Shannon; Elizabeth Swisher; Shaveta Vinayak; Nicoleta C Voian; Jeffrey N Weitzel; Myra J Wick; Georgia L Wiesner; Mary Dwyer; Susan Darlow
Journal:  J Natl Compr Canc Netw       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 11.908

2.  Discussions of Dense Breasts, Breast Cancer Risk, and Screening Choices in 2019.

Authors:  Karla Kerlikowske; Diana L Miglioretti; Celine M Vachon
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2019-07-02       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Validation studies for models projecting the risk of invasive and total breast cancer incidence.

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

4.  Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian, Version 2.2015.

Authors:  Mary B Daly; Robert Pilarski; Jennifer E Axilbund; Michael Berry; Saundra S Buys; Beth Crawford; Meagan Farmer; Susan Friedman; Judy E Garber; Seema Khan; Catherine Klein; Wendy Kohlmann; Allison Kurian; Jennifer K Litton; Lisa Madlensky; P Kelly Marcom; Sofia D Merajver; Kenneth Offit; Tuya Pal; Huma Rana; Gwen Reiser; Mark E Robson; Kristen Mahoney Shannon; Elizabeth Swisher; Nicoleta C Voian; Jeffrey N Weitzel; Alison Whelan; Myra J Wick; Georgia L Wiesner; Mary Dwyer; Rashmi Kumar; Susan Darlow
Journal:  J Natl Compr Canc Netw       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 11.908

5.  Five-year and lifetime risk of breast cancer among U.S. subpopulations: implications for magnetic resonance imaging screening.

Authors:  Barry I Graubard; Andrew N Freedman; Mitchell H Gail
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2010-09-14       Impact factor: 4.254

6.  Evaluation of the Tyrer-Cuzick (International Breast Cancer Intervention Study) model for breast cancer risk prediction in women with atypical hyperplasia.

Authors:  Judy C Boughey; Lynn C Hartmann; Stephanie S Anderson; Amy C Degnim; Robert A Vierkant; Carol A Reynolds; Marlene H Frost; V Shane Pankratz
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-07-06       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually.

Authors:  M H Gail; L A Brinton; D P Byar; D K Corle; S B Green; C Schairer; J J Mulvihill
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1989-12-20       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  Assessing the breast cancer risk distribution for women undergoing screening in British Columbia.

Authors:  Christina R Weisstock; Rasika Rajapakshe; Christabelle Bitgood; Steven McAvoy; Paula B Gordon; Andrew J Coldman; Brent A Parker; Christine Wilson
Journal:  Cancer Prev Res (Phila)       Date:  2013-08-20

9.  Racial distribution of patient population and family physician endorsed importance of screening patients for inherited predisposition to cancer.

Authors:  Robert Gramling; Jennifer Clarke; Emma Simmons
Journal:  J Health Care Poor Underserved       Date:  2009-02

10.  Patterns of breast magnetic resonance imaging use in community practice.

Authors:  Karen J Wernli; Wendy B DeMartini; Laura Ichikawa; Constance D Lehman; Tracy Onega; Karla Kerlikowske; Louise M Henderson; Berta M Geller; Mike Hofmann; Bonnie C Yankaskas
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 21.873

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.