Contribution of three components to individual cancer risk predicting breast cancer risk in Italy

Understanding the contribution of lifestyle in breast cancer risk prediction: a systematic review of models applicable to Europe

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer (BC) is a significant health concern among European women, with the highest prevalence rates among all cancers. Existing BC prediction models account for major risks such as hereditary, hormonal and reproductive factors, but research suggests that adherence to a healthy lifestyle can reduce the risk of developing BC to some extent. Understanding the influence and predictive role of lifestyle variables in current risk prediction models could help identify actionable, modifiable, targets among high-risk population groups.

PURPOSE

To systematically review population-based BC risk prediction models applicable to European populations and identify lifestyle predictors and their corresponding parameter values for a better understanding of their relative contribution to the prediction of incident BC.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted in PubMed, Embase and Web of Science from January 2000 to August 2021. Risk prediction models were included if (i) developed and/or validated in adult cancer-free women in Europe, (ii) based on easily ascertained information, and (iii) reported models' final predictors. To investigate further the comparability of lifestyle predictors across models, estimates were standardised into risk ratios and visualised using forest plots.

RESULTS

From a total of 49 studies, 33 models were developed and 22 different existing models, mostly from Gail (22 studies) and Tyrer-Cuzick and co-workers (12 studies) were validated or modified for European populations. Family history of BC was the most frequently included predictor (31 models), while body mass index (BMI) and alcohol consumption (26 and 21 models, respectively) were the lifestyle predictors most often included, followed by smoking and physical activity (7 and 6 models respectively). Overall, for lifestyle predictors, their modest predictive contribution was greater for riskier lifestyle levels, though highly variable model estimates across different models.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the increasing BC incidence rates in Europe, risk models utilising readily available risk factors could greatly aid in widening the population coverage of screening efforts, while the addition of lifestyle factors could help improving model performance and serve as intervention targets of prevention programmes.

Gail model utilization in predicting breast cancer risk in Egyptian women: a cross-sectional study

PURPOSE

Herein, our purpose was to calculate the 5-year and lifetime risk of breast cancer and to assess new breast cancer potential contributors among Egyptian women utilizing the modified Gail model, while presenting a global comparison of risk assessment.

METHODS

This study included 7009 women from both urban and rural areas scattered across 40% of the Egyptian provinces. The 5-year risk categories were defined as low risk (≤ 1.66%) or high risk (> 1.66%), whereas the lifetime risk categories were defined as low risk (≤ 20%) or high risk (> 20%). Pearson's Chi-squared test was performed to determine the association between participants' characteristics and distinct risk categories. Binary logistic regression was carried out for correlation analysis.

RESULTS

The mean estimated risk for developing invasive breast cancer over 5 years was 0.86 (± 0.67), whereas the mean lifetime breast cancer risk score was 11.26 (± 5.7). Accordingly, only 614 (8.75%) and 470 (6.7%) women were categorized as individuals with high risk of breast cancer incidence in 5-year and lifetime, respectively. Only 192 participants (2.7%) conferred both high 5-year and high lifetime risk scores. Marital status, method of feeding, physical activity behavior, contraceptive use, menopause and number of children were found to have a statistically significant association with both 5-year and lifetime breast cancer risk categories.

CONCLUSION

We revealed that modified Gail model had a well-fitting and discrimination accuracy in Egyptian women when compared with other countries.

Validation of two US breast cancer risk prediction models in German women

PURPOSE

There are no models for German women that predict absolute risk of invasive breast cancer (BC), i.e., the probability of developing BC over a prespecified time period, given a woman's age and characteristics, while accounting for competing risks. We thus validated two absolute BC risk models (BCRAT, BCRmod) developed for US women in German women. BCRAT uses a woman's medical, reproductive, and BC family history; BCRmod adds modifiable risk factors (body mass index, hormone replacement therapy and alcohol use).

METHODS

We assessed model calibration by comparing observed BC numbers (O) to expected numbers (E) computed from BCRmod/BCRAT for German women enrolled in the prospective European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC), and after updating the models with German BC incidence/competing mortality rates. We also compared 1-year BC risk predicted for all German women using the German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Adults (DEGS) with overall German BC incidence. Discriminatory performance was quantified by the area under the receiver operator characteristics curve (AUC).

RESULTS

Among 22,098 EPIC-Germany women aged 40+ years, 745 BCs occurred (median follow-up: 11.9 years). Both models had good calibration for total follow-up, E_BCRmod/O = 1.08 (95% confidence interval: 0.95-1.21), and E_BCRAT/O = 0.99(0.87-1.11), and over 5 years. Compared to German BC incidence rates, both models somewhat overestimated 1-year risk for women aged 55+ and 70+ years. For total follow-up, AUC_BCRmod = 0.61(0.58-0.63) and AUC_BCRAT = 0.58(0.56-0.61), with similar values for 5-year follow-up.

CONCLUSION

US BC risk models showed adequate calibration in German women. Discriminatory performance was comparable to that in US women. These models thus could be applied for risk prediction in German women.

The Application of Gail Model to Predict the Risk of Developing Breast Cancer among Jordanian Women

Background and Objectives. Breast cancer has been the most common cancer affecting women in Jordan. In the process of implementing breast cancer prevention and early detection programs, individualized risk assessment can add to the cost-effectiveness of such interventions. Gail model is a widely used tool to stratify patients into different risk categories. However, concerns about its applicability across different ethnic groups do exist. In this study, we report our experience with the application of a modified version of this model among Jordanian women.

A way forward for cancer prevention therapy: personalized risk assessment

Cancer is characterized by genetic and molecular aberrations whose number and complexity increase dramatically as cells progress along the spectrum of carcinogenesis. The pharmacologic application of agents in the context of a lower burden of dysregulated cellular processes constitutes an efficient strategy to enhance therapeutic efficacy, and underlies the rationale for using cancer prevention agents in high-risk populations. A longstanding barrier to implementing this strategy is that the risk in the general population is low for any given cancer, many people would have to be treated in order to benefit a few. Therefore, identifying and treating high-risk individuals will improve the risk: benefit ratio. Currently, risk is defined by considering a relatively low number of factors. A strategy that considers multiple factors has the ability to define a much-higher-risk cohort than the general population. This article will review the rationale for evaluating multiple risk factors so as to identify individuals at highest risk. It will use breast and lung cancer as examples, will describe currently available risk assessment tools, and will discuss ongoing efforts to expand the impact of this approach. The high potential of this strategy to provide a way forward for developing cancer prevention therapy will be highlighted.

Medication Use to Reduce Risk of Breast Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement

IMPORTANCE

Breast cancer is the most common nonskin cancer among women in the United States and the second leading cause of cancer death. The median age at diagnosis is 62 years, and an estimated 1 in 8 women will develop breast cancer at some point in their lifetime. African American women are more likely to die of breast cancer compared with women of other races.

OBJECTIVE

To update the 2013 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on medications for risk reduction of primary breast cancer.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

The USPSTF reviewed evidence on the accuracy of risk assessment methods to identify women who could benefit from risk-reducing medications for breast cancer, as well as evidence on the effectiveness, adverse effects, and subgroup variations of these medications. The USPSTF reviewed evidence from randomized trials, observational studies, and diagnostic accuracy studies of risk stratification models in women without preexisting breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ.

FINDINGS

The USPSTF found convincing evidence that risk assessment tools can predict the number of cases of breast cancer expected to develop in a population. However, these risk assessment tools perform modestly at best in discriminating between individual women who will or will not develop breast cancer. The USPSTF found convincing evidence that risk-reducing medications (tamoxifen, raloxifene, or aromatase inhibitors) provide at least a moderate benefit in reducing risk for invasive estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer in postmenopausal women at increased risk for breast cancer. The USPSTF found that the benefits of taking tamoxifen, raloxifene, and aromatase inhibitors to reduce risk for breast cancer are no greater than small in women not at increased risk for the disease. The USPSTF found convincing evidence that tamoxifen and raloxifene and adequate evidence that aromatase inhibitors are associated with small to moderate harms. Overall, the USPSTF determined that the net benefit of taking medications to reduce risk of breast cancer is larger in women who have a greater risk for developing breast cancer.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

The USPSTF recommends that clinicians offer to prescribe risk-reducing medications, such as tamoxifen, raloxifene, or aromatase inhibitors, to women who are at increased risk for breast cancer and at low risk for adverse medication effects. (B recommendation) The USPSTF recommends against the routine use of risk-reducing medications, such as tamoxifen, raloxifene, or aromatase inhibitors, in women who are not at increased risk for breast cancer. (D recommendation) This recommendation applies to asymptomatic women 35 years and older, including women with previous benign breast lesions on biopsy (such as atypical ductal or lobular hyperplasia and lobular carcinoma in situ). This recommendation does not apply to women who have a current or previous diagnosis of breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ.

Medication Use for the Risk Reduction of Primary Breast Cancer in Women: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

Medications to reduce risk of breast cancer are effective for women at increased risk but also cause adverse effects.

OBJECTIVE

To update the 2013 US Preventive Services Task Force systematic review on medications to reduce risk of primary (first diagnosis) invasive breast cancer in women.

DATA SOURCES

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, and MEDLINE (January 1, 2013, to February 1, 2019); manual review of reference lists.

STUDY SELECTION

Discriminatory accuracy studies of breast cancer risk assessment methods; randomized clinical trials of tamoxifen, raloxifene, and aromatase inhibitors for primary breast cancer prevention; studies of medication adverse effects.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Investigators abstracted data on methods, participant characteristics, eligibility criteria, outcome ascertainment, and follow-up. Results of individual trials were combined by using a profile likelihood random-effects model.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Probability of breast cancer in individuals (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC]); incidence of breast cancer, fractures, thromboembolic events, coronary heart disease events, stroke, endometrial cancer, and cataracts; and mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 46 studies (82 articles [>5 million participants]) were included. Eighteen risk assessment methods in 25 studies reported low accuracy in predicting the probability of breast cancer in individuals (AUC, 0.55-0.65). In placebo-controlled trials, tamoxifen (risk ratio [RR], 0.69 [95% CI, 0.59-0.84]; 4 trials [n = 28 421]), raloxifene (RR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.24-0.80]; 2 trials [n = 17 806]), and the aromatase inhibitors exemestane and anastrozole (RR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.26-0.70]; 2 trials [n = 8424]) were associated with a lower incidence of invasive breast cancer. Risk for invasive breast cancer was higher for raloxifene than tamoxifen in 1 trial after long-term follow-up (RR, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.05-1.47]; n = 19 747). Raloxifene was associated with lower risk for vertebral fractures (RR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.53-0.73]; 2 trials [n = 16 929]) and tamoxifen was associated with lower risk for nonvertebral fractures (RR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.45-0.98]; 1 trial [n = 13 388]) compared with placebo. Tamoxifen and raloxifene were associated with increased thromboembolic events compared with placebo; tamoxifen was associated with more events than raloxifene. Tamoxifen was associated with higher risk of endometrial cancer and cataracts compared with placebo. Symptomatic effects (eg, vasomotor, musculoskeletal) varied by medication.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Tamoxifen, raloxifene, and aromatase inhibitors were associated with lower risk of primary invasive breast cancer in women but also were associated with adverse effects that differed between medications. Risk stratification methods to identify patients with increased breast cancer risk demonstrated low accuracy.

A systematic review and quality assessment of individualised breast cancer risk prediction models

Background

Individualised breast cancer risk prediction models may be key for planning risk-based screening approaches. Our aim was to conduct a systematic review and quality assessment of these models addressed to women in the general population.

Methods

We followed the Cochrane Collaboration methods searching in Medline, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library databases up to February 2018. We included studies reporting a model to estimate the individualised risk of breast cancer in women in the general population. Study quality was assessed by two independent reviewers. Results are narratively summarised.

Results

We included 24 studies out of the 2976 citations initially retrieved. Twenty studies were based on four models, the Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRAT), the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC), the Rosner & Colditz model, and the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study (IBIS), whereas four studies addressed other original models. Four of the studies included genetic information. The quality of the studies was moderate with some limitations in the discriminative power and data inputs. A maximum AUROC value of 0.71 was reported in the study conducted in a screening context.

Conclusion

Individualised risk prediction models are promising tools for implementing risk-based screening policies. However, it is a challenge to recommend any of them since they need further improvement in their quality and discriminatory capacity.

Risk prediction for breast Cancer in Han Chinese women based on a cause-specific Hazard model

Background

Considering the lack of efficient breast cancer prediction models suitable for general population screening in China. We aimed to develop a risk prediction model to identify high-risk populations, to help with primary prevention of breast cancer among Han Chinese women.

Methods

A cause-specific competing risk model was used to develop the Han Chinese Breast Cancer Prediction model. Data from the Shandong Case-Control Study (328 cases and 656 controls) and Taixing Prospective Cohort Study (13,176 participants) were used to develop and validate the model. The expected/observed (E/O) ratio and C-statistic were calculated to evaluate calibration and discriminative accuracy of the model, respectively.

Results

Compared with the reference level, the relative risks (RRs) for highest level of number of abortions, age at first live birth, history of benign breast disease, body mass index (BMI), family history of breast cancer, and life satisfaction scores were 6.3, 3.6, 4.3, 1.9, 3.3, 2.4, respectively. The model showed good calibration and discriminatory accuracy with an E/O ratio of 1.03 and C-statistic of 0.64.

Conclusions

We developed a risk prediction model including fertility status and relevant disease history, as well as other modifiable risk factors. The model demonstrated good calibration and discrimination ability.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-019-5321-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Review of non-clinical risk models to aid prevention of breast cancer

A disease risk model is a statistical method which assesses the probability that an individual will develop one or more diseases within a stated period of time. Such models take into account the presence or absence of specific epidemiological risk factors associated with the disease and thereby potentially identify individuals at higher risk. Such models are currently used clinically to identify people at higher risk, including identifying women who are at increased risk of developing breast cancer. Many genetic and non-genetic breast cancer risk models have been developed previously. We have evaluated existing non-genetic/non-clinical models for breast cancer that incorporate modifiable risk factors. This review focuses on risk models that can be used by women themselves in the community in the absence of clinical risk factors characterization. The inclusion of modifiable factors in these models means that they can be used to improve primary prevention and health education pertinent for breast cancer. Literature searches were conducted using PubMed, ScienceDirect and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Fourteen studies were eligible for review with sample sizes ranging from 654 to 248,407 participants. All models reviewed had acceptable calibration measures, with expected/observed (E/O) ratios ranging from 0.79 to 1.17. However, discrimination measures were variable across studies with concordance statistics (C-statistics) ranging from 0.56 to 0.89. We conclude that breast cancer risk models that include modifiable risk factors have been well calibrated but have less ability to discriminate. The latter may be a consequence of the omission of some significant risk factors in the models or from applying models to studies with limited sample sizes. More importantly, external validation is missing for most of the models. Generalization across models is also problematic as some variables may not be considered applicable to some populations and each model performance is conditioned by particular population characteristics. In conclusion, it is clear that there is still a need to develop a more reliable model for estimating breast cancer risk which has a good calibration, ability to accurately discriminate high risk and with better generalizability across populations.

Assessment of performance of the Gail model for predicting breast cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

The Gail model has been widely used and validated with conflicting results. The current study aims to evaluate the performance of different versions of the Gail model by means of systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis (TSA).

METHODS

Three systematic review and meta-analyses were conducted. Pooled expected-to-observed (E/O) ratio and pooled area under the curve (AUC) were calculated using the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model. Pooled sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio were evaluated by bivariate mixed-effects model. TSA was also conducted to determine whether the evidence was sufficient and conclusive.

RESULTS

Gail model 1 accurately predicted breast cancer risk in American women (pooled E/O = 1.03; 95% CI 0.76-1.40). The pooled E/O ratios of Caucasian-American Gail model 2 in American, European and Asian women were 0.98 (95% CI 0.91-1.06), 1.07 (95% CI 0.66-1.74) and 2.29 (95% CI 1.95-2.68), respectively. Additionally, Asian-American Gail model 2 overestimated the risk for Asian women about two times (pooled E/O = 1.82; 95% CI 1.31-2.51). TSA showed that evidence in Asian women was sufficient; nonetheless, the results in American and European women need further verification. The pooled AUCs for Gail model 1 in American and European women and Asian females were 0.55 (95% CI 0.53-0.56) and 0.75 (95% CI 0.63-0.88), respectively, and the pooled AUCs of Caucasian-American Gail model 2 for American, Asian and European females were 0.61 (95% CI 0.59-0.63), 0.55 (95% CI 0.52-0.58) and 0.58 (95% CI 0.55-0.62), respectively. The pooled sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio of Gail model 1 were 0.63 (95% CI 0.27-0.89), 0.91 (95% CI 0.87-0.94) and 17.38 (95% CI 2.66-113.70), respectively, and the corresponding indexes of Gail model 2 were 0.35 (95% CI 0.17-0.59), 0.86 (95% CI 0.76-0.92) and 3.38 (95% CI 1.40-8.17), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The Gail model was more accurate in predicting the incidence of breast cancer in American and European females, while far less useful for individual-level risk prediction. Moreover, the Gail model may overestimate the risk in Asian women and the results were further validated by TSA, which is an addition to the three previous systematic review and meta-analyses.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42016047215 .

Development of a Cancer Risk Prediction Tool for Use in the UK Primary Care and Community Settings

Several multivariable risk prediction models have been developed to asses an individual's risk of developing specific cancers. Such models can be used in a variety of settings for prevention, screening, and guiding investigations and treatments. Models aimed at predicting future disease risk that contains lifestyle factors may be of particular use for targeting health promotion activities at an individual level. This type of cancer risk prediction is not yet available in the UK. We have adopted the approach used by the well-established U.S.-derived "YourCancerRisk" model for use in the UK population, which allow users to quantify their individual risk of developing individual cancers relative to the population average risk. The UK version of "YourCancerRisk" computes 10-year cancer risk estimates for 11 cancers utilizing UK figures for prevalence of risk factors and cancer incidence. Because the prevalence of risk factors and the incidence rates for cancer are different between the U.S. and the UK population, this UK model provides more accurate estimates of risks for a UK population. Using an example of breast cancer and data from UK Biobank cohort, we demonstrate that the individual risk factor estimates are similar for the U.S. and UK populations. Assessment of the performance and validation of the multivariate model predictions based on a binary score confirm the model's applicability. The model can be used to estimate absolute and relative cancer risk for use in Primary Care and community settings and is being used in the community to guide lifestyle change. Cancer Prev Res; 10(7); 421-30. ©2017 AACR.

Extensions of the Rosner-Colditz breast cancer prediction model to include older women and type-specific predicted risk

PURPOSE

A breast cancer risk prediction rule previously developed by Rosner and Colditz has reasonable predictive ability. We developed a re-fitted version of this model, based on more than twice as many cases now including women up to age 85, and further extended it to a model that distinguished risk factor prediction of tumors with different estrogen/progesterone receptor status.

METHODS

We compared the calibration and discriminatory ability of the original, the re-fitted, and the type-specific models. Evaluation used data from the Nurses' Health Study during the period 1980-2008, when 4384 incident invasive breast cancers occurred over 1.5 million person-years. Model development used two-thirds of study subjects and validation used one-third.

RESULTS

Predicted risks in the validation sample from the original and re-fitted models were highly correlated (ρ = 0.93), but several parameters, notably those related to use of menopausal hormone therapy and age, had different estimates. The re-fitted model was well-calibrated and had an overall C-statistic of 0.65. The extended, type-specific model identified several risk factors with varying associations with occurrence of tumors of different receptor status. However, this extended model relative to the prediction of any breast cancer did not meaningfully reclassify women who developed breast cancer to higher risk categories, nor women remaining cancer free to lower risk categories.

CONCLUSIONS

The re-fitted Rosner-Colditz model has applicability to risk prediction in women up to age 85, and its discrimination is not improved by consideration of varying associations across tumor subtypes.

A comparison between different prediction models for invasive breast cancer occurrence in the French E3N cohort

Breast cancer remains a global health concern with a lack of high discriminating prediction models. The k-nearest-neighbor algorithm (kNN) estimates individual risks using an intuitive tool. This study compares the performances of this approach with the Cox and the Gail models for the 5-year breast cancer risk prediction. The study included 64,995 women from the French E3N prospective cohort. The sample was divided into a learning (N = 51,821) series to learn the models using fivefold cross-validation and a validation (N = 13,174) series to evaluate them. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and the expected over observed number of cases (E/O) ratio were estimated. In the two series, 393 and 78 premenopausal and 537 and 98 postmenopausal breast cancers were diagnosed. The discrimination values of the best combinations of predictors obtained from cross-validation ranged from 0.59 to 0.60. In the validation series, the AUC values in premenopausal and postmenopausal women were 0.583 [0.520; 0.646] and 0.621 [0.563; 0.679] using the kNN and 0.565 [0.500; 0.631] and 0.617 [0.561; 0.673] using the Cox model. The E/O ratios were 1.26 and 1.28 in premenopausal women and 1.44 and 1.40 in postmenopausal women. The applied Gail model provided AUC values of 0.614 [0.554; 0.675] and 0.549 [0.495; 0.604] and E/O ratios of 0.78 and 1.12. This study shows that the prediction performances differed according to menopausal status when using parametric statistical tools. The k-nearest-neighbor approach performed well, and discrimination was improved in postmenopausal women compared with the Gail model.

The use of the Gail model, body mass index and SNPs to predict breast cancer among women with abnormal (BI-RADS 4) mammograms

Introduction

Mammography screening results in a significant number of false-positives. The use of pretest breast cancer risk factors to guide follow-up of abnormal mammograms could improve the positive predictive value of screening. We evaluated the use of the Gail model, body mass index (BMI), and genetic markers to predict cancer diagnosis among women with abnormal mammograms. We also examined the extent to which pretest risk factors could reclassify women without cancer below the biopsy threshold.

Methods

We recruited a prospective cohort of women referred for biopsy with abnormal (BI-RADS 4) mammograms according to the American College of Radiology’s Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). Breast cancer risk factors were assessed prior to biopsy. A validated panel of 12 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with breast cancer were measured. Logistic regression was used to assess the association of Gail risk factors, BMI and SNPs with cancer diagnosis (invasive or ductal carcinoma in situ). Model discrimination was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, and calibration was assessed using the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test. The distribution of predicted probabilities of a cancer diagnosis were compared for women with or without breast cancer.

Results

In the multivariate model, age (odds ratio (OR) = 1.05; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.03 to 1.08; P < 0.001), SNP panel relative risk (OR = 2.30; 95% CI, 1.06 to 4.99, P = 0.035) and BMI (≥30 kg/m² versus <25 kg/m²; OR = 2.20; 95% CI, 1.05 to 4.58; P = 0.036) were significantly associated with breast cancer diagnosis. Older women were more likely than younger women to be diagnosed with breast cancer. The SNP panel relative risk remained strongly associated with breast cancer diagnosis after multivariable adjustment. Higher BMI was also strongly associated with increased odds of a breast cancer diagnosis. Obese women (OR = 2.20; 95% CI, 1.05 to 4.58; P = 0.036) had more than twice the odds of cancer diagnosis compared to women with a BMI <25 kg/m². The SNP panel appeared to have predictive ability among both white and black women.

Conclusions

Breast cancer risk factors, including BMI and genetic markers, are predictive of cancer diagnosis among women with BI-RADS 4 mammograms. Using pretest risk factors to guide follow-up of abnormal mammograms could reduce the burden of false-positive mammograms.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13058-014-0509-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Validation of Rosner-Colditz breast cancer incidence model using an independent data set, the California Teachers Study

To validate an established breast cancer incidence model in an independent prospective data set. After aligning time periods for follow-up, we restricted populations to comparable age ranges (47–74 years), and followed them for incident invasive breast cancer (follow-up 1994–2008, Nurses’ Health Study [NHS]; and 1995–2009, California Teachers Study [CTS]). We identified 2026 cases during 540,617 person years of follow-up in NHS, and 1,400 cases during 288,111 person years in CTS. We fit the Rosner–Colditz log-incidence model and the Gail model using baseline data. We imputed future use of hormones based on type and prior duration of use and other covariates. We assessed performance using area under the curve (AUC) and calibration methods. Participants in the CTS had fewer children, were leaner, consumed more alcohol, and were more frequent users of postmenopausal hormones. Incidence rate ratios for breast cancer showed significantly higher breast cancer in the CTS (IRR = 1.32, 95 % CI 1.24–1.42). Parameters for the log-incidence model were comparable across the two cohorts. Overall, the NHS model performed equally well when applied in the CTS. In the NHS the AUC was 0.60 (s.e. 0.006) and applying the NHS betas to the CTS the performance in the independent data set (validation) was 0.586 (s.e. 0.009). The Gail model gave values of 0.547 (s.e. 0.008), a significant 4 % lower, p < 0.0001. For women 47–69 the AUC values for the log-incidence model are 0.608 in NHS and 0.609 in CTS; and for Gail are 0.569 and 0.572. In both cohorts, performance of both models dropped off in older women 70–87, and later in follow-up (6–12 years). Calibration showed good estimation against SEER with a non-significant 4 % underestimate of overall breast cancer incidence when applying the model in the CTS population (p = 0.098). The Rosner–Colditz model performs consistently well when applied in an independent data set. Performance is stronger predicting incidence among women 47–69 and over a 5-year time interval. AUC values exceed those for Gail by 3–5 % based on AUC when both are applied to the independent validation data set. Models may be further improved with addition of breast density or other markers of risk beyond the current model.

Korean risk assessment model for breast cancer risk prediction

PURPOSE

We evaluated the performance of the Gail model for a Korean population and developed a Korean breast cancer risk assessment tool (KoBCRAT) based upon equations developed for the Gail model for predicting breast cancer risk.

METHODS

Using 3,789 sets of cases and controls, risk factors for breast cancer among Koreans were identified. Individual probabilities were projected using Gail's equations and Korean hazard data. We compared the 5-year and lifetime risk produced using the modified Gail model which applied Korean incidence and mortality data and the parameter estimators from the original Gail model with those produced using the KoBCRAT. We validated the KoBCRAT based on the expected/observed breast cancer incidence and area under the curve (AUC) using two Korean cohorts: the Korean Multicenter Cancer Cohort (KMCC) and National Cancer Center (NCC) cohort.

RESULTS

The major risk factors under the age of 50 were family history, age at menarche, age at first full-term pregnancy, menopausal status, breastfeeding duration, oral contraceptive usage, and exercise, while those at and over the age of 50 were family history, age at menarche, age at menopause, pregnancy experience, body mass index, oral contraceptive usage, and exercise. The modified Gail model produced lower 5-year risk for the cases than for the controls (p = 0.017), while the KoBCRAT produced higher 5-year and lifetime risk for the cases than for the controls (p<0.001 and <0.001, respectively). The observed incidence of breast cancer in the two cohorts was similar to the expected incidence from the KoBCRAT (KMCC, p = 0.880; NCC, p = 0.878). The AUC using the KoBCRAT was 0.61 for the KMCC and 0.89 for the NCC cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that the KoBCRAT is a better tool for predicting the risk of breast cancer in Korean women, especially urban women.

Recalibration of the Gail model for predicting invasive breast cancer risk in Spanish women: a population-based cohort study

The Gail model for predicting the absolute risk of invasive breast cancer has been validated extensively in US populations, but its performance in the international setting remains uncertain. We evaluated the predictive accuracy of the Gail model in 54,649 Spanish women aged 45-68 years who were free of breast cancer at the 1996-1998 baseline mammographic examination in the population-based Navarre Breast Cancer Screening Program. Incident cases of invasive breast cancer and competing deaths were ascertained until the end of 2005 (average follow-up of 7.7 years) through linkage with population-based cancer and mortality registries. The Gail model was tested for calibration and discrimination in its original form and after recalibration to the lower breast cancer incidence and risk factor prevalence in the study cohort, and compared through cross-validation with a Navarre model fully developed from this cohort. The original Gail model overpredicted significantly the 835 cases of invasive breast cancer observed in the cohort (ratio of expected to observed cases 1.46, 95 % CI 1.36-1.56). The recalibrated Gail model was well calibrated overall (expected-to-observed ratio 1.00, 95 % CI 0.94-1.07), but it tended to underestimate risk for women in low-risk quintiles and to overestimate risk in high-risk quintiles (P = 0.01). The Navarre model showed good cross-validated calibration overall (expected-to-observed ratio 0.98, 95 % CI 0.92-1.05) and in different cohort subsets. The Navarre and Gail models had modest cross-validated discrimination indexes of 0.542 (95 % CI 0.521-0.564) and 0.544 (95 % CI 0.523-0.565), respectively. Although the original Gail model cannot be applied directly to populations with different underlying rates of invasive breast cancer, it can readily be recalibrated to provide unbiased estimates of absolute risk in such populations. Nevertheless, its limited discrimination ability at the individual level highlights the need to develop extended models with additional strong risk factors.

Assessing risk of breast cancer in an ethnically South-East Asia population (results of a multiple ethnic groups study)

BACKGROUND

Gail and others developed a model (GAIL) using age-at-menarche, age-at-birth of first live child, number of previous benign breast biopsy examinations, and number of first-degree-relatives with breast cancer as well as baseline age-specific breast cancer risks for predicting the 5-year risk of invasive breast cancer for Caucasian women. However, the validity of the model for projecting risk in South-East Asian women is uncertain. We evaluated GAIL and attempted to improve its performance for Singapore women of Chinese, Malay and Indian origins.

METHODS

Data from the Singapore Breast Screening Programme (SBSP) are used. Motivated by lower breast cancer incidence in many Asian countries, we utilised race-specific invasive breast cancer and other cause mortality rates for Singapore women to produce GAIL-SBSP. By using risk factor information from a nested case-control study within SBSP, alternative models incorporating fewer then additional risk factors were determined. Their accuracy was assessed by comparing the expected cases (E) with the observed (O) by the ratio (E/O) and 95% confidence interval (CI) and the respective concordance statistics estimated.

RESULTS

From 28,883 women, GAIL-SBSP predicted 241.83 cases during the 5-year follow-up while 241 were reported (E/O=1.00, CI=0.88 to 1.14). Except for women who had two or more first-degree-relatives with breast cancer, satisfactory prediction was present in almost all risk categories. This agreement was reflected in Chinese and Malay, but not in Indian women. We also found that a simplified model (S-GAIL-SBSP) including only age-at-menarche, age-at-birth of first live child and number of first-degree-relatives performed similarly with associated concordance statistics of 0.5997. Taking account of body mass index and parity did not improve the calibration of S-GAIL-SBSP.

CONCLUSIONS

GAIL can be refined by using national race-specific invasive breast cancer rates and mortality rates for causes other than breast cancer. A revised model containing only three variables (S-GAIL-SBSP) provides a simpler approach for projecting absolute risk of invasive breast cancer in South-East Asia women. Nevertheless its role in counseling the individual women regarding their risk of breast cancer remains problematical and needs to be validated in independent data.

Validation of the Gail model for predicting individual breast cancer risk in a prospective nationwide study of 28,104 Singapore women

Introduction

The Gail model (GM) is a risk-assessment model used in individual estimation of the absolute risk of invasive breast cancer, and has been applied to both clinical counselling and breast cancer prevention studies. Although the GM has been validated in several Western studies, its applicability outside North America and Europe remains uncertain. The Singapore Breast Cancer Screening Project (SBCSP) is a nation-wide prospective trial of screening mammography conducted between Oct 1994 and Feb 1997, and is the only such trial conducted outside North America and Europe to date. With the long-term outcomes from this study, we sought to evaluate the performance of GM in prediction of individual breast cancer risk in a Asian developed country.

Methods

The study population consisted of 28,104 women aged 50 to 64 years who participated in the SBSCP and did not have breast cancer detected during screening. The national cancer registry was used to identify incident cases of breast cancer. To evaluate the performance of the GM, we compared the expected number of invasive breast cancer cases predicted by the model to the actual number of cases observed within 5-year and 10-year follow-up. Pearson's Chi-square test was used to test the goodness of fit between the expected and observed cases of invasive breast cancers.

Results

The ratio of expected to observed number of invasive breast cancer cases within 5 years from screening was 2.51 (95% confidence interval 2.14 - 2.96). The GM over-estimated breast cancer risk across all age groups, with the discrepancy being highest among older women aged 60 - 64 years (E/O = 3.53, 95% CI = 2.57-4.85). The model also over-estimated risk for the upper 80% of women with highest predicted risk. The overall E/O ratio for the 10-year predicted breast cancer risk was 1.85 (1.68-2.04).

Conclusions

The GM over-predicts the risk of invasive breast cancer in the setting of a developed Asian country as demonstrated in a large prospective trial, with the largest difference seen in older women aged between 60 and 64 years old. The reason for the discrepancy is likely to be multifactorial, including a truly lower prevalence of breast cancer, as well as lower mammographic screening prevalence locally.

Risk factor modification and projections of absolute breast cancer risk

BACKGROUND

Although modifiable risk factors have been included in previous models that estimate or project breast cancer risk, there remains a need to estimate the effects of changes in modifiable risk factors on the absolute risk of breast cancer.

METHODS

Using data from a case-control study of women in Italy (2569 case patients and 2588 control subjects studied from June 1, 1991, to April 1, 1994) and incidence and mortality data from the Florence Registries, we developed a model to predict the absolute risk of breast cancer that included five non-modifiable risk factors (reproductive characteristics, education, occupational activity, family history, and biopsy history) and three modifiable risk factors (alcohol consumption, leisure physical activity, and body mass index). The model was validated using independent data, and the percent risk reduction was calculated in high-risk subgroups identified by use of the Lorenz curve.

RESULTS

The model was reasonably well calibrated (ratio of expected to observed cancers = 1.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.96 to 1.26), but the discriminatory accuracy was modest. The absolute risk reduction from exposure modifications was nearly proportional to the risk before modifying the risk factors and increased with age and risk projection time span. Mean 20-year reductions in absolute risk among women aged 65 years were 1.6% (95% CI = 0.9% to 2.3%) in the entire population, 3.2% (95% CI = 1.8% to 4.8%) among women with a positive family history of breast cancer, and 4.1% (95% CI = 2.5% to 6.8%) among women who accounted for the highest 10% of the total population risk, as determined from the Lorenz curve.

CONCLUSIONS

These data give perspective on the potential reductions in absolute breast cancer risk from preventative strategies based on lifestyle changes. Our methods are also useful for calculating sample sizes required for trials to test lifestyle interventions.

External validity of risk models: Use of benchmark values to disentangle a case-mix effect from incorrect coefficients

Various performance measures related to calibration and discrimination are available for the assessment of risk models. When the validity of a risk model is assessed in a new population, estimates of the model's performance can be influenced in several ways. The regression coefficients can be incorrect, which indeed results in an invalid model. However, the distribution of patient characteristics (case mix) may also influence the performance of the model. Here the authors consider a number of typical situations that can be encountered in external validation studies. Theoretical relations between differences in development and validation samples and performance measures are studied by simulation. Benchmark values for the performance measures are proposed to disentangle a case-mix effect from incorrect regression coefficients, when interpreting the model's estimated performance in validation samples. The authors demonstrate the use of the benchmark values using data on traumatic brain injury obtained from the International Tirilazad Trial and the North American Tirilazad Trial (1991-1994).

Applicability of the Gail model for breast cancer risk assessment in Turkish female population and evaluation of breastfeeding as a risk factor

The Gail model is considered the best available means for estimating risk of breast cancer development, but it has not yet been applied systematically and validated in Turkish female population. This study was designed to evaluate the performance of the Gail model for Turkish female population. Additionally duration of breastfeeding was examined as a possible risk factor. Our analysis included 650 patients with invasive breast carcinoma (group 1) and 640 women with negative results who had undergone a screening mammography on visiting a mammary care unit (group 2). Two groups were compared with regard to individual risk factors included in the Gail model and also duration of breastfeeding. The Gail model was used to predict 5-year risk for each woman. Age and first live birth > or =30 years were associated with an increased relative risk for breast cancer development. Age at menarche, previous breast biopsy, atypical hyperplasia, and number of first degree relatives with breast cancer were found to be non-significant. The Gail model showed 13.3% sensitivity and 92% specificity in estimating the risk of breast cancer development in Turkish women. Positive predictive value was 63%, negative predictive value was 51.9%, and validity index was 53.1%. Duration of breastfeeding was significantly longer in group 1 than 2 (median 17 vs. 13 months). The proportion of parous women with no breastfed was higher in group 1 than 2. The currently used Gail model does not seem to be an appropriate breast cancer risk assessment tool for Turkish female population.

Gail model for prediction of absolute risk of invasive breast cancer: independent evaluation in the Florence-European Prospective Investigation Into Cancer and Nutrition cohort

BACKGROUND

The Gail model 2 (GM) for predicting the absolute risk of invasive breast cancer has been used for counseling and to design intervention studies. Although the GM has been validated in US populations, its performance in other populations is unclear because of the wide variation in international breast cancer rates.

METHODS

We used data from a multicenter case-control study in Italy and from Italian cancer registries to develop a model (IT-GM) that uses the same risk factors as the GM. We evaluated the accuracy of the IT-GM and the GM using independent data from the Florence-European Prospective Investigation Into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort. To assess model calibration (i.e., how well the model predicts the observed numbers of events in subsets of the population), we compared the number of expected incident breast cancers (E) predicted by these models with the number of observed incident breast cancers (O), and we computed the concordance statistic to measure discriminatory accuracy.

RESULTS

The overall E/O ratios were 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.84 to 1.11) and 0.93 (95% CI = 0.81 to 1.08) for the IT-GM and the GM, respectively. The IT-GM was somewhat better calibrated than GM in women younger than 50 years, but the GM was better calibrated when age at first live birth categories were considered (e.g., 20- to 24-year age-at-first-birth category E/O = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.53 to 0.94 for the IT-GM and E/O = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.58 to 1.03 for the GM). The concordance statistic was approximately 59% for both models, with 95% confidence intervals indicating that the models perform statistically significantly better than pure chance (concordance statistic of 50%).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no statistically significant evidence of miscalibration overall for either the IT-GM or the GM, and the models had equivalent discriminatory accuracy. The good performance of the IT-GM when applied on the independent data from the Florence-EPIC cohort indicates that GM can be improved for use in populations other than US populations. Our findings suggest that the Italian data may be useful for revising the GM to include additional risk factors for breast cancer.

Prospective breast cancer risk prediction model for women undergoing screening mammography

BACKGROUND

Risk prediction models for breast cancer can be improved by the addition of recently identified risk factors, including breast density and use of hormone therapy. We used prospective risk information to predict a diagnosis of breast cancer in a cohort of 1 million women undergoing screening mammography.

METHODS

There were 2,392,998 eligible screening mammograms from women without previously diagnosed breast cancer who had had a prior mammogram in the preceding 5 years. Within 1 year of the screening mammogram, 11,638 women were diagnosed with breast cancer. Separate logistic regression risk models were constructed for premenopausal and postmenopausal examinations by use of a stringent (P<.0001) criterion for the inclusion of risk factors. Risk models were constructed with 75% of the data and validated with the remaining 25%. Concordance of the predicted with the observed outcomes was assessed by a concordance (c) statistic after logistic regression model fit. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

Statistically significant risk factors for breast cancer diagnosis among premenopausal women included age, breast density, family history of breast cancer, and a prior breast procedure. For postmenopausal women, the statistically significant factors included age, breast density, race, ethnicity, family history of breast cancer, a prior breast procedure, body mass index, natural menopause, hormone therapy, and a prior false-positive mammogram. The model may identify high-risk women better than the Gail model, although predictive accuracy was only moderate. The c statistics were 0.631 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.618 to 0.644) for premenopausal women and 0.624 (95% CI = 0.619 to 0.630) for postmenopausal women.

CONCLUSION

Breast density is a strong additional risk factor for breast cancer, although it is unknown whether reduction in breast density would reduce risk. Our risk model may be able to identify women at high risk for breast cancer for preventive interventions or more intensive surveillance.

Breast cancer risk assessment and risk perception on nurses and midwives in Bornova Health District in Turkey

Risk perception is a significant component of awareness of breast cancer risks. It can be helpful to reduce deaths of breast cancer via increasing awareness risk level. This study aimed to discuss the level of perceived and calculated breast cancer risk and to provide data on the practice of breast self-examination and use of mammography among 215 nurses and midwives working in the 23 primary healthcare centers in Turkey. Participants were asked to assess their personal lifetime breast cancer risk by a 4-item Likert scale ("no risk," "usual," "moderate," and "strong" risk), which determined "perceived breast cancer risk." Gail model was used to assess the "calculated breast cancer risk," which was calculated by the tool provided by the National Cancer Institute, version 7. Perceived and calculated risk levels were compared. The relation between sociodemographic and risk factors with "perceived risk" was examined. In addition, the influence of perceived risk on breast cancer screening practice was also assessed. The level of perceived risk of nurses and midwives was higher than that of calculated risk. Considering the fact that participants were healthcare professionals, the use of breast self-examination and mammography practices as a preventive behavior by nurses and midwives was lower than expected. Implications are discussed with regard to breast cancer risk and preventive behavior.

Monitoring the decrease in breast cancer mortality in Europe

Trends in mortality from breast cancer over the period 1970-2000 were analysed for 38 European countries and the European Union (EU). Age-standardized mortality rates were computed by the direct method, and joinpoint analysis was used to identify significant changes in rates. A favourable pattern in breast cancer mortality in the 25 countries of the EU (as defined in May 2004) was observed after 1989, leading to a fall in overall rates from 21.3/100,000 in 1990 to 18.9 in 2000. The annual percentage change in the EU was -2.1% between 1995 and 2000. Most northern European countries, including several Scandinavian countries and the UK, but also some central and southern European countries like Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic, Austria, Switzerland, Italy and Spain showed appreciable falls in rates (i.e. between 8 and 19% in the last 5 calendar years). The declines were larger below age 50, approaching 20% in several countries. The falls were smaller in France, Greece, Portugal and most eastern European countries. In the Russian Federation, all-age breast cancer mortality increased from 16.1 to 17.3/100,000 (+7.5% over the last 5 calendar years). These patterns reflect converging trends in breast cancer rates across Europe, which can be related to the more uniform reproductive and lifestyle habits. The fall in breast cancer mortality observed in most European countries over the last decade has to be attributed to earlier detection and improved treatment, although the definite reasons for the different trends in various countries remain at least in part unclear.