Literature DB >> 34338943

Improved risk estimation of locoregional recurrence, secondary contralateral tumors and distant metastases in early breast cancer: the INFLUENCE 2.0 model.

Catharina G M Groothuis-Oudshoorn1, Sabine Siesling2,3, Vinzenz Völkel4, Tom A Hueting5,1, Teresa Draeger4, Marissa C van Maaren1,6, Linda de Munck6, Luc J A Strobbe7, Gabe S Sonke8, Marjanka K Schmidt9, Marjan van Hezewijk10.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To extend the functionality of the existing INFLUENCE nomogram for locoregional recurrence (LRR) of breast cancer toward the prediction of secondary primary tumors (SP) and distant metastases (DM) using updated follow-up data and the best suitable statistical approaches.
METHODS: Data on women diagnosed with non-metastatic invasive breast cancer were derived from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (n = 13,494). To provide flexible time-dependent individual risk predictions for LRR, SP, and DM, three statistical approaches were assessed; a Cox proportional hazard approach (COX), a parametric spline approach (PAR), and a random survival forest (RSF). These approaches were evaluated on their discrimination using the Area Under the Curve (AUC) statistic and on calibration using the Integrated Calibration Index (ICI). To correct for optimism, the performance measures were assessed by drawing 200 bootstrap samples.
RESULTS: Age, tumor grade, pT, pN, multifocality, type of surgery, hormonal receptor status, HER2-status, and adjuvant therapy were included as predictors. While all three approaches showed adequate calibration, the RSF approach offers the best optimism-corrected 5-year AUC for LRR (0.75, 95%CI: 0.74-0.76) and SP (0.67, 95%CI: 0.65-0.68). For the prediction of DM, all three approaches showed equivalent discrimination (5-year AUC: 0.77-0.78), while COX seems to have an advantage concerning calibration (ICI < 0.01). Finally, an online calculator of INFLUENCE 2.0 was created.
CONCLUSIONS: INFLUENCE 2.0 is a flexible model to predict time-dependent individual risks of LRR, SP and DM at a 5-year scale; it can support clinical decision-making regarding personalized follow-up strategies for curatively treated non-metastatic breast cancer patients.
© 2021. The Author(s).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Contralateral breast cancer; Follow-up; Mamma carcinoma; Metachronous metastasis; Recurrence; Risk prediction

Year:  2021        PMID: 34338943     DOI: 10.1007/s10549-021-06335-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat        ISSN: 0167-6806            Impact factor:   4.872


  22 in total

1.  World Cancer Report 2014. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, WHO Press, 2015.

Authors:  Shelley McGuire
Journal:  Adv Nutr       Date:  2016-03-15       Impact factor: 8.701

2.  Follow-up testing for curatively treated cancer survivors. What to do?

Authors:  C L Loprinzi
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1995-06-21       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Maastricht Delphi consensus on event definitions for classification of recurrence in breast cancer research.

Authors:  Martine Moossdorff; Lori M van Roozendaal; Luc J A Strobbe; Stefan Aebi; David A Cameron; J Michael Dixon; Armando E Giuliano; Bruce G Haffty; Brigid E Hickey; Clifford A Hudis; V Suzanne Klimberg; Bogda Koczwara; Thorsten Kühn; Marc E Lippman; Anthony Lucci; Martine Piccart; Benjamin D Smith; Vivianne C G Tjan-Heijnen; Cornelis J H van de Velde; Kimberly J Van Zee; Jan B Vermorken; Giuseppe Viale; Adri C Voogd; Irene L Wapnir; Julia R White; Marjolein L Smidt
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2014-11-07       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  Trends in breast cancer survival in Germany from 1976 to 2008--a period analysis by age and stage.

Authors:  Bernd Holleczek; Volker Arndt; Christa Stegmaier; Hermann Brenner
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol       Date:  2011-04-05       Impact factor: 2.984

5.  A preliminary study of patients' perceptions of routine follow-up after treatment for breast cancer.

Authors:  E Pennery; J Mallet
Journal:  Eur J Oncol Nurs       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 2.398

6.  Psychological effects of routine follow up on cancer patients after surgery.

Authors:  G M Kiebert; K Welvaart; J Kievit
Journal:  Eur J Surg       Date:  1993 Nov-Dec

7.  Recurrence risk in small, node-negative, early breast cancer: a multicenter retrospective analysis.

Authors:  T Gamucci; A Vaccaro; F Ciancola; L Pizzuti; I Sperduti; L Moscetti; F Longo; M A Fabbri; M A Giampaolo; L Mentuccia; L Di Lauro; P Vici
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2013-02-15       Impact factor: 4.553

8.  Personalisation of breast cancer follow-up: a time-dependent prognostic nomogram for the estimation of annual risk of locoregional recurrence in early breast cancer patients.

Authors:  Annemieke Witteveen; Ingrid M H Vliegen; Gabe S Sonke; Joost M Klaase; Maarten J IJzerman; Sabine Siesling
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2015-07-11       Impact factor: 4.872

9.  Long-term Incidence and Mortality Trends for Breast Cancer in Germany.

Authors:  Joachim Hübner; Alexander Katalinic; Annika Waldmann; Klaus Kraywinkel
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2020-06-17       Impact factor: 2.915

10.  Recent Improvement in the Long-term Survival of Breast Cancer Patients by Age and Stage in Japan.

Authors:  Akiyo Yoshimura; Hidemi Ito; Yoshikazu Nishino; Masakazu Hattori; Tomohiro Matsuda; Isao Miyashiro; Tomio Nakayama; Hiroji Iwata; Keitaro Matsuo; Hideo Tanaka; Yuri Ito
Journal:  J Epidemiol       Date:  2018-02-24       Impact factor: 3.211

View more
  4 in total

1.  PredictCBC-2.0: a contralateral breast cancer risk prediction model developed and validated in ~ 200,000 patients.

Authors:  Daniele Giardiello; Maartje J Hooning; Michael Hauptmann; Renske Keeman; B A M Heemskerk-Gerritsen; Heiko Becher; Carl Blomqvist; Stig E Bojesen; Manjeet K Bolla; Nicola J Camp; Kamila Czene; Peter Devilee; Diana M Eccles; Peter A Fasching; Jonine D Figueroa; Henrik Flyger; Montserrat García-Closas; Christopher A Haiman; Ute Hamann; John L Hopper; Anna Jakubowska; Floor E Leeuwen; Annika Lindblom; Jan Lubiński; Sara Margolin; Maria Elena Martinez; Heli Nevanlinna; Ines Nevelsteen; Saskia Pelders; Paul D P Pharoah; Sabine Siesling; Melissa C Southey; Annemieke H van der Hout; Liselotte P van Hest; Jenny Chang-Claude; Per Hall; Douglas F Easton; Ewout W Steyerberg; Marjanka K Schmidt
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2022-10-21       Impact factor: 8.408

2.  Relations between recurrence risk perceptions and fear of cancer recurrence in breast cancer survivors.

Authors:  J W Ankersmid; F K Lansink Rotgerink; L J A Strobbe; C F van Uden-Kraan; S Siesling; C H C Drossaert
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2022-07-30       Impact factor: 4.624

3.  Adherence to the Dutch Breast Cancer Guidelines for Surveillance in Breast Cancer Survivors: Real-World Data from a Pooled Multicenter Analysis.

Authors:  Teresa Draeger; Vinzenz Voelkel; Kay Schreuder; Jeroen Veltman; Anneriet Dassen; Luc Strobbe; Harald J Heijmans; Ron Koelemij; Catharina G M Groothuis-Oudshoorn; Sabine Siesling
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2022-10-01       Impact factor: 5.837

4.  Health care professionals overestimate the risk for locoregional recurrences after breast cancer treatment depending on their specialty.

Authors:  Jet W Ankersmid; Pauline E R Spronk; Anneke M Zeillemaker; Sabine Siesling
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2022-03-13       Impact factor: 4.624

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.