ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Evaluation of breast cancer risk assessment packages in the family history evaluation and screening programme

E Amir^1,*, D G Evans^2,*, A Shenton^2,*, F Lalloo², A Moran³, C Boggis⁴, M Wilson⁴, A Howell⁵

¹ University of Manchester, UK
² Academic Unit of Medical Genetics and Regional Genetics Service, St. Mary’s Hospital, Manchester, UK
³ Centre for Cancer Epidemiology, University of Manchester, UK
⁴ Department of Radiology, South Manchester University Hospital Trust, Manchester, UK
⁵ Department of Medical Oncology, Christie Hospital, Manchester, UK

Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
Professor D G Evans
Academic Unit of Medical Genetics and Regional Genetics Service, St. Mary’s Hospital, Hathersage Road, Manchester M13 0JH, UK; gareth.evans{at}cmmc.nhs.uk

Introduction: Accurate individualised breast cancer risk assessment is essential to provide risk–benefit analysis prior to initiating interventions designed to lower breast cancer risk. Several mathematical models for the estimation of individual breast cancer risk have been proposed. However, no single model integrates family history, hormonal factors, and benign breast disease in a comprehensive fashion. A new model by Tyrer and Cuzick has addressed these deficiencies. Therefore, this study has assessed the goodness of fit and discriminatory value of the Tyrer–Cuzick model against established models namely Gail, Claus, and Ford.

Methods: The goodness of fit and discriminatory accuracy of the models was assessed using data from 1933 women attending the Family History Evaluation and Screening Programme, of whom 52 developed cancer. All models were applied to these women over a mean follow up of 5.27 years to estimate risk of breast cancer.

Results: The ratios (95% confidence intervals) of expected to observed numbers of breast cancers were 0.48 (0.37 to 0.64) for Gail, 0.56 (0.43 to 0.75) for Claus, 0.49 (0.37 to 0.65) for Ford, and 0.81 (0.62 to 1.08) for Tyrer–Cuzick. The accuracy of the models for individual cases was evaluated using ROC curves. These showed that the area under the curve was 0.735 for Gail, 0.716 for Claus, 0.737 for Ford, and 0.762 for Tyrer–Cuzick.

Conclusion: The Tyrer–Cuzick model is the most consistently accurate model for prediction of breast cancer. The Gail, Claus, and Ford models all significantly underestimate risk, although the accuracy of the Claus model may be improved by adjustments for other risk factors.

Keywords: assessment; breast cancer; models; risk; validation

Abbreviations: ROC, receiver operating characteristic

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Stone, J., Warren, R. M. L., Pinney, E., Warwick, J., Cuzick, J. (2009). Determinants of Percentage and Area Measures of Mammographic Density. Am J Epidemiol 0: kwp313v1-kwp313 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Evans, D. G. R., Lalloo, F., Ashcroft, L., Shenton, A., Clancy, T., Baildam, A. D., Brain, A., Hopwood, P., Howell, A. (2009). Uptake of Risk-Reducing Surgery in Unaffected Women at High Risk of Breast and Ovarian Cancer Is Risk, Age, and Time Dependent. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 18: 2318-2324 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Visvanathan, K., Chlebowski, R. T., Hurley, P., Col, N. F., Ropka, M., Collyar, D., Morrow, M., Runowicz, C., Pritchard, K. I., Hagerty, K., Arun, B., Garber, J., Vogel, V. G., Wade, J. L., Brown, P., Cuzick, J., Kramer, B. S., Lippman, S. M. (2009). American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update on the Use of Pharmacologic Interventions Including Tamoxifen, Raloxifene, and Aromatase Inhibition for Breast Cancer Risk Reduction. JCO 27: 3235-3258 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Evans, D G R, Baildam, A D, Anderson, E, Brain, A, Shenton, A, Vasen, H F A, Eccles, D, Lucassen, A, Pichert, G, Hamed, H, Moller, P, Maehle, L, Morrison, P J, Stoppat-Lyonnet, D, Gregory, H, Smyth, E, Niederacher, D, Nestle-Kramling, C, Campbell, J, Hopwood, P, Lalloo, F, Howell, A (2009). Risk reducing mastectomy: outcomes in 10 European centres. J. Med. Genet. 46: 254-258 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Amir, E., Freedman, O. (2009). Underestimation of Risk by Gail Model Extends Beyond Women With Atypical Hyperplasia. JCO 27: 1526-1526 [Full Text]  
• Cummings, S. R., Tice, J. A., Bauer, S., Browner, W. S., Cuzick, J., Ziv, E., Vogel, V., Shepherd, J., Vachon, C., Smith-Bindman, R., Kerlikowske, K. (2009). Prevention of Breast Cancer in Postmenopausal Women: Approaches to Estimating and Reducing Risk. JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst 101: 384-398 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Berg, W. A. (2009). Tailored Supplemental Screening for Breast Cancer: What Now and What Next?. Am. J. Roentgenol. 192: 390-399 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Mahoney, M. C., Bevers, T., Linos, E., Willett, W. C. (2008). Opportunities and Strategies for Breast Cancer Prevention Through Risk Reduction. CA Cancer J Clin 0: CA.2008.0016v1-CA.2008.0016 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Lowy, I., Gaudilliere, J. P. (2008). Localizing the Global: Testing for Hereditary Risks of Breast Cancer. Science Technology Human Values 33: 299-325 [Abstract]  
• Domchek, S. M., Antoniou, A. (2007). Cancer Risk Models: Translating Family History into Clinical Management. ANN INTERN MED 147: 515-517 [Full Text]  
• Santen, R. J, Boyd, N. F, Chlebowski, R. T, Cummings, S., Cuzick, J., Dowsett, M., Easton, D., Forbes, J. F, Key, T., Hankinson, S. E, Howell, A., Ingle, J. (2007). Critical assessment of new risk factors for breast cancer: considerations for development of an improved risk prediction model. Endocr Relat Cancer 14: 169-187 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Saslow, D., Boetes, C., Burke, W., Harms, S., Leach, M. O., Lehman, C. D., Morris, E., Pisano, E., Schnall, M., Sener, S., Smith, R. A., Warner, E., Yaffe, M., Andrews, K. S., Russell, C. A., for the American Cancer Society Breast Cancer Advi, (2007). American Cancer Society Guidelines for Breast Screening with MRI as an Adjunct to Mammography. CA Cancer J Clin 57: 75-89 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Decarli, A., Calza, S., Masala, G., Specchia, C., Palli, D., Gail, M. H. (2006). Gail Model for Prediction of Absolute Risk of Invasive Breast Cancer: Independent Evaluation in the Florence-European Prospective Investigation Into Cancer and Nutrition Cohort. JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst 98: 1686-1693 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Barlow, W. E., White, E., Ballard-Barbash, R., Vacek, P. M., Titus-Ernstoff, L., Carney, P. A., Tice, J. A., Buist, D. S. M., Geller, B. M., Rosenberg, R., Yankaskas, B. C., Kerlikowske, K. (2006). Prospective breast cancer risk prediction model for women undergoing screening mammography.. JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst 98: 1204-1214 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Palomares, M. R., Machia, J. R.B., Lehman, C. D., Daling, J. R., McTiernan, A. (2006). Mammographic density correlation with gail model breast cancer risk estimates and component risk factors.. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 15: 1324-1330 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Hemminki, K, Eng, C (2004). Clinical genetic counselling for familial cancers requires reliable data on familial cancer risks and general action plans. J. Med. Genet. 41: 801-807 [Abstract] [Full Text]  

eLetters:

Read all eLetters

Breast cancer risk prediction models

Mano S Selvan

J Med Genet, 5 May 2004 [Full text]

Re: Breast cancer risk prediction models

D Gareth Evans, et al.

J Med Genet, 5 May 2004 [Full text]