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

被引:14
作者
Dartois, Laureen [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Gauthier, Emilien [4 ]
Heitzmann, Julia [4 ]
Baglietto, Laura [5 ,6 ]
Michiels, Stefan [2 ,7 ]
Mesrine, Sylvie [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Boutron-Ruault, Marie-Christine [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Delaloge, Suzette [8 ]
Ragusa, Stephane [4 ]
Clavel-Chapelon, Francoise [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Fagherazzi, Guy [1 ,2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Ctr Res Epidemiol & Populat Hlth CESP, INSERM, U1018, Team 9, F-94805 Villejuif, France
[2] Univ Paris 11, UMRS 1018, F-94805 Villejuif, France
[3] Gustave Roussy, F-94805 Villejuif, France
[4] Statlife, F-94805 Villejuif, France
[5] Canc Council Victoria, Canc Epidemiol Ctr, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[6] Univ Melbourne, Ctr Mol Environm Genet & Analyt Epidemiol, Sch Populat Hlth, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[7] Gustave Roussy, Serv Biostat & Epidemiol, F-94805 Villejuif, France
[8] Gustave Roussy, Dept Med Oncol, F-94805 Villejuif, France
关键词
Breast cancer; Women; Risk score; Proportional hazard Cox regression; Nearest-neighbor algorithm; Discrimination; Calibration; Postmenopausal women; Premenopausal women; Menopausal status; Gail model; RISK-PREDICTION; GAIL MODEL; EXTERNAL VALIDATION; WOMEN; POPULATION; AGE; ESTROGEN; EPIDEMIOLOGY; PERFORMANCE; DIAGNOSIS;
D O I
10.1007/s10549-015-3321-7
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:415 / 426
页数:12
相关论文
共 65 条
[1]   Prognosis and prognostic research: validating a prognostic model [J].
Altman, Douglas G. ;
Vergouwe, Yvonne ;
Royston, Patrick ;
Moons, Karel G. M. .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2009, 338 :1432-1435
[2]   Assessing Women at High Risk of Breast Cancer: A Review of Risk Assessment Models [J].
Amir, Eitan ;
Freedman, Orit C. ;
Seruga, Bostjan ;
Evans, D. Gareth .
JNCI-JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2010, 102 (10) :680-691
[3]   Estrogen receptor breast cancer phenotypes in the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results database [J].
Anderson, WF ;
Chatterjee, N ;
Ershler, WB ;
Brawley, OW .
BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT, 2002, 76 (01) :27-36
[4]   Risk prediction models of breast cancer: a systematic review of model performances [J].
Anothaisintawee, Thunyarat ;
Teerawattananon, Yot ;
Wiratkapun, Chollathip ;
Kasamesup, Vijj ;
Thakkinstian, Ammarin .
BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT, 2012, 133 (01) :1-10
[5]   A survey of cross-validation procedures for model selection [J].
Arlot, Sylvain ;
Celisse, Alain .
STATISTICS SURVEYS, 2010, 4 :40-79
[6]   An enhanced contrast to detect bulk objects under arbitrary rough surfaces [J].
Arnaud, L. ;
Georges, G. ;
Sorrentini, J. ;
Zerrad, M. ;
Deumie, C. ;
Amra, C. .
OPTICS EXPRESS, 2009, 17 (07) :5758-5773
[7]   Prospective breast cancer risk prediction model for women undergoing screening mammography [J].
Barlow, William E. ;
White, Emily ;
Ballard-Barbash, Rachel ;
Vacek, Pamela M. ;
Titus-Ernstoff, Linda ;
Carney, Patricia A. ;
Tice, Jeffrey A. ;
Buist, Diana S. M. ;
Geller, Berta M. ;
Rosenberg, Robert ;
Yankaskas, Bonnie C. ;
Kerlikowske, Karla .
JNCI-JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2006, 98 (17) :1204-1214
[8]   RISK-FACTORS FOR BREAST-CANCER ACCORDING TO AGE AT DIAGNOSIS IN A FRENCH CASE CONTROL STUDY [J].
BOUCHARDY, C ;
LE, MG ;
HILL, C .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1990, 43 (03) :267-275
[9]   Contribution of three components to individual cancer risk predicting breast cancer risk in ltaly [J].
Boyle, P ;
Mezzetti, M ;
La Vecchia, C ;
Franceschi, S ;
Decarli, A ;
Robertson, C .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER PREVENTION, 2004, 13 (03) :183-191
[10]  
Breslow N. E., 1972, J R STAT SOC B, V34, P216