Prospective Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Model for Women Undergoing Screening Mammography

Cancer Research and Biostatistics, 1730 Minor Avenue, Suite 1900, Seattle, WA 98101, USA.
Journal of the National Cancer Institute (Impact Factor: 12.58). 09/2006; 98(17):1204-14. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djj331
Source: PubMed


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.
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.
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.
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.

Download full-text


Available from: William E Barlow, Nov 16, 2015
  • Source
    • "Many studies have investigated the association of mammographic density with breast cancer risk and found it to be a strong independent risk factor [1] [2] [3] [4]. However, the conclusion is mainly reached on the basis of large epidemiology studies from a statistical perspective, and the most noticeable difference in risks is between women with extremely dense breast compared to women with almost entirely fatty breast [24] [25] [26] [27]. The current knowledge and direct evidence regarding whether breast tumors arise directly within the dense breast tissue is still lacking [2] [6] [7]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study presented a three-dimensional magnetic resonance (MR)-based method to separate a breast into four quadrants for quantitative measurements of the quadrant breast volume (BV) and density. Breast MR images from 58 healthy women were studied. The breast and the fibroglandular tissue were segmented by using a computer-based algorithm. A breast was divided into four quadrants using two perpendicular planes intersecting at the nipple or the nipple-centroid line. After the separation, the BV, the fibroglandular tissue volume, and the percent density (PD) were calculated. The symmetry of the quadrant BV in the left and right breasts separated by using the nipple alone, or the nipple-centroid line, was compared. The quadrant separation made on the basis of the nipple-centroid line showed closer BVs in four quadrants than using the nipple alone. The correlation and agreement for the BV in corresponding quadrants of the left and the right breasts were improved after the nipple-centroid reorientation. Among the four quadrants, PD was the highest in the lower outer and the lowest in the upper outer (significant than the other three) quadrants (P < .05). We presented a quantitative method to divide a breast into four quadrants. The reorientation based on the nipple-centroid line improved the left to right quadrant symmetry, and this may provide a better standardized method to measure quantitative quadrant density. The cancer occurrence rates are known to vary in different sites of a breast, and our method may provide a tool for investigating its association with the quantitative breast density. Copyright © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    Translational oncology 08/2015; 8(4):250-7. DOI:10.1016/j.tranon.2015.04.005 · 2.88 Impact Factor
    • "Restricting cost-effectiveness analysis to genetically susceptible women offers limited information to decision makers who are making policy recommendations for all high-risk women because breast cancer incidence in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers is just B4% per annum in the age group of 40–49 years (Antoniou et al, 2003). In addition, ongoing efforts have been made to improve existing prediction models for women at high risk using risk factors other than BRCA mutational status that can be obtained during routine screening examinations (Barlow et al, 2006; Cummings et al, 2009). All of this evidence supports the importance of assessing the cost-effectiveness of MRI in a broader group of patients than BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is recommended for women at high risk for breast cancer. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of alternative screening strategies involving MRI. Methods: Using a microsimulation model, we generated life histories under different risk profiles, and assessed the impact of screening on quality-adjusted life-years, and lifetime costs, both discounted at 3%. We compared 12 screening strategies combining annual or biennial MRI with mammography and clinical breast examination (CBE) in intervals of 0.5, 1, or 2 years vs without, and reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Results: Based on an ICER threshold of $100,000/QALY, the most cost-effective strategy for women at 25% lifetime risk was to stagger MRI and mammography plus CBE every year from age 30 to 74, yielding ICER $58,400 (compared to biennial MRI alone). At 50% lifetime risk and with 70% reduction in MRI cost, the recommended strategy was to stagger MRI and mammography plus CBE every 6 months (ICER=$84,400). At 75% lifetime risk, the recommended strategy is biennial MRI combined with mammography plus CBE every 6 months (ICER=$62,800). Conclusions: The high costs of MRI and its lower specificity are limiting factors for annual screening schedule of MRI, except for women at sufficiently high risk.
    British Journal of Cancer 08/2014; 111(8). DOI:10.1038/bjc.2014.458 · 4.84 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "These results suggest that margins and shape may be more difficult to reliably assess in younger women due to high breast density. Breast density has previously been shown to be a strong risk factor for both invasive cancer and DCIS compared to women without cancer [31]. Our results are consistent with this finding in that we did not find breast density to be a stronger predictor of invasive versus DCIS in our study nor was it differentially predictive based on age. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Increasing focus on potentially unnecessary diagnosis and treatment of certain breast cancers prompted our investigation of whether clinical and mammographic features predictive of invasive breast cancer versus ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) differ by age. We analyzed 1,475 malignant breast biopsies, 1,063 invasive and 412 DCIS, from 35,871 prospectively collected consecutive diagnostic mammograms interpreted at University of California, San Francisco between 1/6/1997 and 6/29/2007. We constructed three logistic regression models to predict the probability of invasive cancer versus DCIS for the following groups: women ≥ 65 (older group), women 50–64 (middle age group), and women < 50 (younger group). We identified significant predictors and measured the performance in all models using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). The models for older and the middle age groups performed significantly better than the model for younger group (AUC = 0.848 vs, 0.778; p = 0.049 and AUC = 0.851 vs, 0.778; p = 0.022, respectively). Palpability and principal mammographic finding were significant predictors in distinguishing invasive from DCIS in all age groups. Family history of breast cancer, mass shape and mass margins were significant positive predictors of invasive cancer in the older group whereas calcification distribution was a negative predictor of invasive cancer (i.e. predicted DCIS). In the middle age group—mass margins, and in the younger group—mass size were positive predictors of invasive cancer. Clinical and mammographic finding features predict invasive breast cancer versus DCIS better in older women than younger women. Specific predictive variables differ based on age.
    BMC Cancer 08/2014; 14(1):584. DOI:10.1186/1471-2407-14-584 · 3.36 Impact Factor
Show more