Performance of Breast Cancer Risk-Assessment Models in a Large Mammography Cohort.
Journal
Journal of the National Cancer Institute
ISSN: 1460-2105
Titre abrégé: J Natl Cancer Inst
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7503089
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 05 2020
01 05 2020
Historique:
received:
28
03
2019
revised:
23
07
2019
accepted:
04
09
2019
pubmed:
27
9
2019
medline:
9
1
2021
entrez:
27
9
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Several breast cancer risk-assessment models exist. Few studies have evaluated predictive accuracy of multiple models in large screening populations. We evaluated the performance of the BRCAPRO, Gail, Claus, Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC), and Tyrer-Cuzick models in predicting risk of breast cancer over 6 years among 35 921 women aged 40-84 years who underwent mammography screening at Newton-Wellesley Hospital from 2007 to 2009. We assessed model discrimination using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and assessed calibration by comparing the ratio of observed-to-expected (O/E) cases. We calculated the square root of the Brier score and positive and negative predictive values of each model. Our results confirmed the good calibration and comparable moderate discrimination of the BRCAPRO, Gail, Tyrer-Cuzick, and BCSC models. The Gail model had slightly better O/E ratio and AUC (O/E = 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.91 to 1.06, AUC = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.61 to 0.65) compared with BRCAPRO (O/E = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.88 to 1.02, AUC = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.59 to 0.63) and Tyrer-Cuzick (version 8, O/E = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.79 to 0.91, AUC = 0.62, 95% 0.60 to 0.64) in the full study population, and the BCSC model had the highest AUC among women with available breast density information (O/E = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.89 to 1.05, AUC = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.62 to 0.66). All models had poorer predictive accuracy for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive and triple-negative breast cancers than hormone receptor positive human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative breast cancers. In a large cohort of patients undergoing mammography screening, existing risk prediction models had similar, moderate predictive accuracy and good calibration overall. Models that incorporate additional genetic and nongenetic risk factors and estimate risk of tumor subtypes may further improve breast cancer risk prediction.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Several breast cancer risk-assessment models exist. Few studies have evaluated predictive accuracy of multiple models in large screening populations.
METHODS
We evaluated the performance of the BRCAPRO, Gail, Claus, Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC), and Tyrer-Cuzick models in predicting risk of breast cancer over 6 years among 35 921 women aged 40-84 years who underwent mammography screening at Newton-Wellesley Hospital from 2007 to 2009. We assessed model discrimination using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and assessed calibration by comparing the ratio of observed-to-expected (O/E) cases. We calculated the square root of the Brier score and positive and negative predictive values of each model.
RESULTS
Our results confirmed the good calibration and comparable moderate discrimination of the BRCAPRO, Gail, Tyrer-Cuzick, and BCSC models. The Gail model had slightly better O/E ratio and AUC (O/E = 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.91 to 1.06, AUC = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.61 to 0.65) compared with BRCAPRO (O/E = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.88 to 1.02, AUC = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.59 to 0.63) and Tyrer-Cuzick (version 8, O/E = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.79 to 0.91, AUC = 0.62, 95% 0.60 to 0.64) in the full study population, and the BCSC model had the highest AUC among women with available breast density information (O/E = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.89 to 1.05, AUC = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.62 to 0.66). All models had poorer predictive accuracy for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive and triple-negative breast cancers than hormone receptor positive human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative breast cancers.
CONCLUSIONS
In a large cohort of patients undergoing mammography screening, existing risk prediction models had similar, moderate predictive accuracy and good calibration overall. Models that incorporate additional genetic and nongenetic risk factors and estimate risk of tumor subtypes may further improve breast cancer risk prediction.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31556450
pii: 5574009
doi: 10.1093/jnci/djz177
pmc: PMC7225681
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
489-497Subventions
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR001863
Pays : United States
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Références
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007 Nov 21;99(22):1695-705
pubmed: 18000216
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013 Jun;139(2):571-9
pubmed: 23690142
Lancet Oncol. 2019 Apr;20(4):504-517
pubmed: 30799262
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2016 Feb;25(2):359-65
pubmed: 26677205
Ann Intern Med. 2008 Mar 4;148(5):337-47
pubmed: 18316752
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020 Mar 1;112(3):278-285
pubmed: 31165158
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016 Dec 20;109(2):
pubmed: 28003316
JAMA Oncol. 2018 Sep 1;4(9):e180174
pubmed: 29621362
Breast Cancer Res. 2018 Mar 13;20(1):18
pubmed: 29534738
J Natl Cancer Inst. 1997 Feb 5;89(3):227-38
pubmed: 9017003
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007 Dec 5;99(23):1782-92
pubmed: 18042936
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2001 Apr;10(4):333-8
pubmed: 11319173
Biochim Biophys Acta. 2015 Aug;1856(1):73-85
pubmed: 26071880
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011 Jun 22;103(12):951-61
pubmed: 21562243
J Natl Cancer Inst. 1989 Dec 20;81(24):1879-86
pubmed: 2593165
Cancer. 1994 Feb 1;73(3):643-51
pubmed: 8299086
Stat Med. 2004 Apr 15;23(7):1111-30
pubmed: 15057881
Br J Cancer. 2004 Oct 18;91(8):1580-90
pubmed: 15381934
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001 Mar 7;93(5):358-66
pubmed: 11238697
J Med Genet. 2003 Nov;40(11):807-14
pubmed: 14627668
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017 Jul;164(2):263-284
pubmed: 28444533
Breast Cancer Res. 2015 Dec 01;17(1):147
pubmed: 26627479
Breast Cancer Res. 2012 Nov 05;14(6):R144
pubmed: 23127309
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012 May;133(1):1-10
pubmed: 22076477
Am J Hum Genet. 1991 Feb;48(2):232-42
pubmed: 1990835
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1993 Nov;28(2):115-20
pubmed: 8173064