Model for Individualized Prediction of Breast Cancer Risk After a Benign Breast Biopsy

被引:56
作者
Pankratz, V. Shane [1 ]
Degnim, Amy C. [2 ]
Frank, Ryan D. [2 ]
Frost, Marlene H. [2 ]
Visscher, Daniel W. [2 ]
Vierkant, Robert A. [2 ]
Hieken, Tina J. [2 ]
Ghosh, Karthik [2 ]
Tarabishy, Yaman [3 ]
Vachon, Celine M. [2 ]
Radisky, Derek C. [4 ]
Hartmann, Lynn C. [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ New Mexico, Hlth Sci Ctr, Albuquerque, NM 87131 USA
[2] Mayo Clin, Rochester, MN USA
[3] Washington Univ, St Louis, MO USA
[4] Mayo Clin, Jacksonville, FL 32224 USA
关键词
MULTIPLE IMPUTATION; DISEASE; WOMEN; VALIDATION;
D O I
10.1200/JCO.2014.55.4865
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Purpose Optimal early detection and prevention for breast cancer depend on accurate identification of women at increased risk. We present a risk prediction model that incorporates histologic features of biopsy tissues from women with benign breast disease (BBD) and compare its performance to the Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRAT). Methods We estimated the age-specific incidence of breast cancer and death from the Mayo BBD cohort and then combined these estimates with a relative risk model derived from 377 patient cases with breast cancer and 734 matched controls sampled from the Mayo BBD cohort to develop the BBD-to-breast cancer (BBD-BC) risk assessment tool. We validated the model using an independent set of 378 patient cases with breast cancer and 728 matched controls from the Mayo BBD cohort and compared the risk predictions from our model with those from the BCRAT. Results The BBD-BC model predicts the probability of breast cancer in women with BBD using tissue-based and other risk factors. The concordance statistic from the BBD-BC model was 0.665 in the model development series and 0.629 in the validation series; these values were higher than those from the BCRAT (0.567 and 0.472, respectively). The BCRAT significantly underpredicted breast cancer risk after benign biopsy (P = .004), whereas the BBD-BC predictions were appropriately calibrated to observed cancers (P = .247). Conclusion We developed a model using both demographic and histologic features to predict breast cancer risk in women with BBD. Our model more accurately classifies a woman's breast cancer risk after a benign biopsy than the BCRAT. (C) 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology
引用
收藏
页码:923 / +
页数:10
相关论文
共 29 条
[1]  
American Cancer Society, MAN WOM GET BREAST C
[2]   ESTIMATES OF ABSOLUTE CAUSE-SPECIFIC RISK IN COHORT STUDIES [J].
BENICHOU, J ;
GAIL, MH .
BIOMETRICS, 1990, 46 (03) :813-826
[3]   Evaluation of the Tyrer-Cuzick (International Breast Cancer Intervention Study) Model for Breast Cancer Risk Prediction in Women With Atypical Hyperplasia [J].
Boughey, Judy C. ;
Hartmann, Lynn C. ;
Anderson, Stephanie S. ;
Degnim, Amy C. ;
Vierkant, Robert A. ;
Reynolds, Carol A. ;
Frost, Marlene H. ;
Pankratz, V. Shane .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2010, 28 (22) :3591-3596
[4]   Validation studies for models projecting the risk of invasive and total breast cancer incidence [J].
Costantino, JP ;
Gail, MH ;
Pee, D ;
Anderson, S ;
Redmond, CK ;
Benichou, J ;
Wieand, HS .
JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 1999, 91 (18) :1541-1548
[5]  
DUPONT WD, 1993, CANCER, V71, P1258, DOI 10.1002/1097-0142(19930215)71:4<1258::AID-CNCR2820710415>3.0.CO
[6]  
2-I
[7]   RISK-FACTORS FOR BREAST-CANCER IN WOMEN WITH PROLIFERATIVE BREAST DISEASE [J].
DUPONT, WD ;
PAGE, DL .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1985, 312 (03) :146-151
[8]   PROJECTING INDIVIDUALIZED PROBABILITIES OF DEVELOPING BREAST-CANCER FOR WHITE FEMALES WHO ARE BEING EXAMINED ANNUALLY [J].
GAIL, MH ;
BRINTON, LA ;
BYAR, DP ;
CORLE, DK ;
GREEN, SB ;
SCHAIRER, C ;
MULVIHILL, JJ .
JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 1989, 81 (24) :1879-1886
[9]  
Gail MH, BREAST CANC RISK ASS
[10]   Utilization of minimally invasive breast biopsy for the evaluation of suspicious breast lesions [J].
Gutwein, Luke G. ;
Ang, Darwin N. ;
Liu, Huazhi ;
Marshall, Julia K. ;
Hochwald, Steven N. ;
Copeland, Edward M. ;
Grobmyer, Stephen R. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2011, 202 (02) :127-132