Ningning Min1,2, Yufan Wei1,2, Yiqiong Zheng2, Xiru Li2. 1. School of Medicine, Nankai University, Tianjin, China. 2. Department of General Surgery, Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To provide a reference for clinical work and guide the decision-making of healthcare providers and end-users, we systematically reviewed the development, validation and classification of classical prognostic models for breast cancer. BACKGROUND: Patients suffering from breast cancer have different prognosis for its high heterogeneity. Accurate prognosis prediction and risk stratification for breast cancer are crucial for individualized treatment. There is a lack of systematic summary of breast cancer prognostic models. METHODS: We conducted a PubMed search with keywords "breast neoplasm", "prognostic model", "recurrence" and "metastasis", and screened the retrieved publications at three levels: title, abstract and full text. We identified the articles presented the development and/or validation of models based on clinicopathological factors, genomics, and machine learning (ML) methods to predict survival and/or benefits of adjuvant therapy in female breast cancer patients. CONCLUSIONS: Combining prognostic-related variables with long-term clinical outcomes, researchers have developed a series of prognostic models based on clinicopathological parameters, genomic assays, and medical figures. The discrimination, calibration, overall performance, and clinical usefulness were validated by internal and/or external verifications. Clinicopathological models integrated the clinical parameters, including tumor size, histological grade, lymph node status, hormone receptor status to provide prognostic information for patients and doctors. Gene-expression assays deeply revealed the molecular heterogeneity of breast cancer, some of which have been cited by AJCC and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. In addition, the models based on the ML methods provided more detailed information for prognosis prediction by increasing the data dimension. Combined models incorporating clinical variables and genomics information are still required to be developed as the focus of further researches. 2021 Gland Surgery. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVE: To provide a reference for clinical work and guide the decision-making of healthcare providers and end-users, we systematically reviewed the development, validation and classification of classical prognostic models for breast cancer. BACKGROUND: Patients suffering from breast cancer have different prognosis for its high heterogeneity. Accurate prognosis prediction and risk stratification for breast cancer are crucial for individualized treatment. There is a lack of systematic summary of breast cancer prognostic models. METHODS: We conducted a PubMed search with keywords "breast neoplasm", "prognostic model", "recurrence" and "metastasis", and screened the retrieved publications at three levels: title, abstract and full text. We identified the articles presented the development and/or validation of models based on clinicopathological factors, genomics, and machine learning (ML) methods to predict survival and/or benefits of adjuvant therapy in female breast cancer patients. CONCLUSIONS: Combining prognostic-related variables with long-term clinical outcomes, researchers have developed a series of prognostic models based on clinicopathological parameters, genomic assays, and medical figures. The discrimination, calibration, overall performance, and clinical usefulness were validated by internal and/or external verifications. Clinicopathological models integrated the clinical parameters, including tumor size, histological grade, lymph node status, hormone receptor status to provide prognostic information for patients and doctors. Gene-expression assays deeply revealed the molecular heterogeneity of breast cancer, some of which have been cited by AJCC and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. In addition, the models based on the ML methods provided more detailed information for prognosis prediction by increasing the data dimension. Combined models incorporating clinical variables and genomics information are still required to be developed as the focus of further researches. 2021 Gland Surgery. All rights reserved.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; clinicopathological model; gene expression assay; machine learning model (ML model); prognostic model
Authors: Soonmyung Paik; Steven Shak; Gong Tang; Chungyeul Kim; Joffre Baker; Maureen Cronin; Frederick L Baehner; Michael G Walker; Drew Watson; Taesung Park; William Hiller; Edwin R Fisher; D Lawrence Wickerham; John Bryant; Norman Wolmark Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-12-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Nirmala Bhoo-Pathy; Cheng-Har Yip; Mikael Hartman; Nakul Saxena; Nur Aishah Taib; Gwo-Fuang Ho; Lai-Meng Looi; Awang M Bulgiba; Yolanda van der Graaf; Helena M Verkooijen Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2012-02-25 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: G C Wishart; C D Bajdik; E M Azzato; E Dicks; D C Greenberg; J Rashbass; C Caldas; P D P Pharoah Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2011-03-02 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Wendy A Woodward; William E Barlow; Reshma Jagsi; Thomas A Buchholz; Steven Shak; Frederick Baehner; Timothy J Whelan; Nancy E Davidson; James N Ingle; Tari A King; Peter M Ravdin; C Kent Osborne; Debasish Tripathy; Robert B Livingston; Julie R Gralow; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Daniel F Hayes; Kathy S Albain Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2020-04-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Xavier Pivot; Laura Mansi; Loic Chaigneau; Philippe Montcuquet; Antoine Thiery-Vuillemin; Fernando Bazan; Erion Dobi; Jean L Sautiere; Frederic Rigenbach; Marie P Algros; Steve Butler; Farid Jamshidian; Phillip Febbo; Christer Svedman; Sophie Paget-Bailly; Franck Bonnetain; Christian Villanueva Journal: Oncologist Date: 2015-03-20
Authors: Jolien M Bueno-de-Mesquita; Wim H van Harten; Valesca P Retel; Laura J van 't Veer; Frits Sam van Dam; Kim Karsenberg; Kirsten Fl Douma; Harm van Tinteren; Johannes L Peterse; Jelle Wesseling; Tin S Wu; Douwe Atsma; Emiel Jt Rutgers; Guido Brink; Arno N Floore; Annuska M Glas; Rudi Mh Roumen; Frank E Bellot; Cees van Krimpen; Sjoerd Rodenhuis; Marc J van de Vijver; Sabine C Linn Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2007-11-26 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: I Balslev; C K Axelsson; K Zedeler; B B Rasmussen; B Carstensen; H T Mouridsen Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 1994 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: E A Rakha; D Soria; A R Green; C Lemetre; D G Powe; C C Nolan; J M Garibaldi; G Ball; I O Ellis Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2014-03-11 Impact factor: 7.640