rss
J Med Genet 2003;40:807-814 doi:10.1136/jmg.40.11.807
  • Original article

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

  1. E Amir1,*,
  2. D G Evans2,*,
  3. A Shenton2,*,
  4. F Lalloo2,
  5. A Moran3,
  6. C Boggis4,
  7. M Wilson4,
  8. A Howell5
  1. 1University of Manchester, UK
  2. 2Academic Unit of Medical Genetics and Regional Genetics Service, St. Mary’s Hospital, Manchester, UK
  3. 3Centre for Cancer Epidemiology, University of Manchester, UK
  4. 4Department of Radiology, South Manchester University Hospital Trust, Manchester, UK
  5. 5Department of Medical Oncology, Christie Hospital, Manchester, UK
  1. 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.evanscmmc.nhs.uk
  • Accepted 26 June 2003
  • Revised 17 April 2003

Abstract

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.

Footnotes

  • ↵* The first three authors contributed equally to the paper

Responses to this article

  • Re: Breast cancer risk prediction models
    • D Gareth Evans,
    • E Amir, A Shenton, A Howell
    J Med Genet published online May 5, 2004
  • Breast cancer risk prediction models
    • Mano S Selvan
    J Med Genet published online May 5, 2004

This Article

  1. Abstract
  2. Full text
  3. PDF

Register for free content

The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.