Literature DB >> 35026019

Cumulative Advanced Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Model Developed in a Screening Mammography Population.

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.   

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.
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35026019      PMCID: PMC9086807          DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djac008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst        ISSN: 0027-8874            Impact factor:   11.816


  54 in total

1.  Nationwide cross-sectional adherence to mammography screening guidelines: national behavioral risk factor surveillance system survey results.

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

2.  Breast Cancer Characteristics Associated With Digital Versus Film-Screen Mammography for Screen-Detected and Interval Cancers.

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

3.  Screening outcomes in older US women undergoing multiple mammograms in community practice: does interval, age, or comorbidity score affect tumor characteristics or false positive rates?

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

4.  Declines in invasive breast cancer and use of postmenopausal hormone therapy in a screening mammography population.

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

5.  Mammographic screening interval in relation to tumor characteristics and false-positive risk by race/ethnicity and age.

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

Review 6.  Benefits and Harms of Breast Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review.

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

7.  Risk factors for breast cancer in women with proliferative breast disease.

Authors:  W D Dupont; D L Page
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1985-01-17       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Prognostic characteristics of breast cancer among postmenopausal hormone users in a screened population.

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

9.  Sensitivity and specificity of mammography and adjunctive ultrasonography to screen for breast cancer in the Japan Strategic Anti-cancer Randomized Trial (J-START): a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Noriaki Ohuchi; Akihiko Suzuki; Tomotaka Sobue; Masaaki Kawai; Seiichiro Yamamoto; Ying-Fang Zheng; Yoko Narikawa Shiono; Hiroshi Saito; Shinichi Kuriyama; Eriko Tohno; Tokiko Endo; Akira Fukao; Ichiro Tsuji; Takuhiro Yamaguchi; Yasuo Ohashi; Mamoru Fukuda; Takanori Ishida
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2015-11-05       Impact factor: 79.321

10.  Cost-effectiveness and harm-benefit analyses of risk-based screening strategies for breast cancer.

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

View more
  1 in total

1.  Toward Using Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Models for Guiding Screening Decisions.

Authors:  Chaya S Moskowitz
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2022-05-09       Impact factor: 11.816

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.