Karla Kerlikowske1,2, Shuai Chen3, Marzieh K Golmakani4, Brian L Sprague5, Jeffrey A Tice1, Anna N A Tosteson6,7, Garth H Rauscher8, Louise M Henderson9, Diana S M Buist10, Janie M Lee11, Charlotte C Gard12, Diana L Miglioretti3,10. 1. Department of Medicine and Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA. 2. General Internal Medicine Section, Department of Veterans Affairs, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA. 3. Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California, Davis, CA, USA. 4. Pfizer Inc, San Diego, CA, USA. 5. Department of Surgery and Radiology, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA. 6. The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, NH, USA. 7. Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, NH, USA. 8. School of Public Health, Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. 9. Department of Radiology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 10. Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Kaiser Permanente Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 11. Department of Radiology, University of Washington, and Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA, USA. 12. Department of Economics, Applied Statistics, and International Business, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Estimating advanced breast cancer risk in women undergoing annual or biennial mammography could identify women who may benefit from less or more intensive screening. We developed an actionable model to predict cumulative 6-year advanced cancer (prognostic pathologic stage II or higher) risk according to screening interval. METHODS: We included 931 186 women aged 40-74 years in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium undergoing 2 542 382 annual (prior mammogram within 11-18 months) or 752 049 biennial (prior within 19-30 months) screening mammograms. The prediction model includes age, race and ethnicity, body mass index, breast density, family history of breast cancer, and prior breast biopsy subdivided by menopausal status and screening interval. We used fivefold cross-validation to internally validate model performance. We defined higher than 95th percentile as high risk (>0.658%), higher than 75th percentile to 95th or less percentile as intermediate risk (0.380%-0.658%), and 75th or less percentile as low to average risk (<0.380%). RESULTS: Obesity, high breast density, and proliferative disease with atypia were strongly associated with advanced cancer. The model is well calibrated and has an area under the receiver operating characteristics curve of 0.682 (95% confidence interval = 0.670 to 0.694). Based on women's predicted advanced cancer risk under annual and biennial screening, 69.1% had low or average risk regardless of screening interval, 12.4% intermediate risk with biennial screening and average risk with annual screening, and 17.4% intermediate or high risk regardless of screening interval. CONCLUSION: Most women have low or average advanced cancer risk and can undergo biennial screening. Intermediate-risk women may consider annual screening, and high-risk women may consider supplemental imaging in addition to annual screening.
BACKGROUND: Estimating advanced breast cancer risk in women undergoing annual or biennial mammography could identify women who may benefit from less or more intensive screening. We developed an actionable model to predict cumulative 6-year advanced cancer (prognostic pathologic stage II or higher) risk according to screening interval. METHODS: We included 931 186 women aged 40-74 years in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium undergoing 2 542 382 annual (prior mammogram within 11-18 months) or 752 049 biennial (prior within 19-30 months) screening mammograms. The prediction model includes age, race and ethnicity, body mass index, breast density, family history of breast cancer, and prior breast biopsy subdivided by menopausal status and screening interval. We used fivefold cross-validation to internally validate model performance. We defined higher than 95th percentile as high risk (>0.658%), higher than 75th percentile to 95th or less percentile as intermediate risk (0.380%-0.658%), and 75th or less percentile as low to average risk (<0.380%). RESULTS: Obesity, high breast density, and proliferative disease with atypia were strongly associated with advanced cancer. The model is well calibrated and has an area under the receiver operating characteristics curve of 0.682 (95% confidence interval = 0.670 to 0.694). Based on women's predicted advanced cancer risk under annual and biennial screening, 69.1% had low or average risk regardless of screening interval, 12.4% intermediate risk with biennial screening and average risk with annual screening, and 17.4% intermediate or high risk regardless of screening interval. CONCLUSION: Most women have low or average advanced cancer risk and can undergo biennial screening. Intermediate-risk women may consider annual screening, and high-risk women may consider supplemental imaging in addition to annual screening.
Authors: Anand Narayan; Alexander Fischer; Zihe Zhang; Ryan Woods; Elizabeth Morris; Susan Harvey Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-05-15 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Louise M Henderson; Diana L Miglioretti; Karla Kerlikowske; Karen J Wernli; Brian L Sprague; Constance D Lehman Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Dejana Braithwaite; Weiwei Zhu; Rebecca A Hubbard; Ellen S O'Meara; Diana L Miglioretti; Berta Geller; Kim Dittus; Dan Moore; Karen J Wernli; Jeanne Mandelblatt; Karla Kerlikowske Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2013-02-05 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Karla Kerlikowske; Diana L Miglioretti; Diana S M Buist; Rod Walker; Patricia A Carney Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2007-08-14 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Ellen S O'Meara; Weiwei Zhu; Rebecca A Hubbard; Dejana Braithwaite; Karla Kerlikowske; Kim L Dittus; Berta Geller; Karen J Wernli; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-08-26 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Evan R Myers; Patricia Moorman; Jennifer M Gierisch; Laura J Havrilesky; Lars J Grimm; Sujata Ghate; Brittany Davidson; Ranee Chatterjee Mongtomery; Matthew J Crowley; Douglas C McCrory; Amy Kendrick; Gillian D Sanders Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-10-20 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Karla Kerlikowske; Diana L Miglioretti; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Donald L Weaver; Diana S M Buist; William E Barlow; Gary Cutter; Berta M Geller; Bonnie Yankaskas; Stephen H Taplin; Patricia A Carney Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-12-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ester Vilaprinyo; Carles Forné; Misericordia Carles; Maria Sala; Roger Pla; Xavier Castells; Laia Domingo; Montserrat Rue Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-02-03 Impact factor: 3.240