Assessing breast cancer risk models in Marin County, a population with high rates of delayed childbirth

Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tools for Stratifying Women into Risk Groups: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The benefits and harms of breast screening may be better balanced through a risk-stratified approach. We conducted a systematic review assessing the accuracy of questionnaire-based risk assessment tools for this purpose.

METHODS

Population: asymptomatic women aged ≥40 years; Intervention: questionnaire-based risk assessment tool (incorporating breast density and polygenic risk where available); Comparison: different tool applied to the same population; Primary outcome: breast cancer incidence; Scope: external validation studies identified from databases including Medline and Embase (period 1 January 2008-20 July 2021). We assessed calibration (goodness-of-fit) between expected and observed cancers and compared observed cancer rates by risk group. Risk of bias was assessed with PROBAST.

RESULTS

Of 5124 records, 13 were included examining 11 tools across 15 cohorts. The Gail tool was most represented (n = 11), followed by Tyrer-Cuzick (n = 5), BRCAPRO and iCARE-Lit (n = 3). No tool was consistently well-calibrated across multiple studies and breast density or polygenic risk scores did not improve calibration. Most tools identified a risk group with higher rates of observed cancers, but few tools identified lower-risk groups across different settings. All tools demonstrated a high risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

Some risk tools can identify groups of women at higher or lower breast cancer risk, but this is highly dependent on the setting and population.

Performance of the IBIS/Tyrer-Cuzick model of breast cancer risk by race and ethnicity in the Women's Health Initiative

BACKGROUND

The IBIS/Tyrer-Cuzick model is used clinically to guide breast cancer screening and prevention, but was developed primarily in non-Hispanic White women. Little is known about its long-term performance in a racially/ethnically diverse population.

METHODS

The Women's Health Initiative study enrolled postmenopausal women from 1993-1998. Women were included who were aged <80 years at enrollment with no prior breast cancer or mastectomy and with data required for IBIS/Tyrer-Cuzick calculation (weight; height; ages at menarche, first birth, and menopause; menopausal hormone therapy use; and family history of breast or ovarian cancer). Calibration was assessed by the ratio of observed breast cancer cases to the number expected by the IBIS/Tyrer-Cuzick model (O/E; calculated as the sum of cumulative hazards). Differential discrimination was tested for by self-reported race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, Asian or Pacific Islander, and American Indian or Alaskan Native) using Cox regression. Exploratory analyses, including simulation of a protective single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP), rs140068132 at 6q25, were performed.

RESULTS

During follow-up (median 18.9 years, maximum 23.4 years), 6783 breast cancer cases occurred among 90,967 women. IBIS/Tyrer-Cuzick was well calibrated overall (O/E ratio = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.93-0.97) and in most racial/ethnic groups, but overestimated risk for Hispanic women (O/E ratio = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.62-0.90). Discrimination did not differ by race/ethnicity. Exploratory simulation of the protective SNP suggested improved IBIS/Tyrer-Cuzick calibration for Hispanic women (O/E ratio = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66-0.96).

CONCLUSIONS

The IBIS/Tyrer-Cuzick model is well calibrated for several racial/ethnic groups over 2 decades of follow-up. Studies that incorporate genetic and other risk factors, particularly among Hispanic women, are essential to improve breast cancer-risk prediction.

Comparative Validation of Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Models and Projections for Future Risk Stratification

BACKGROUND

External validation of risk models is critical for risk-stratified breast cancer prevention. We used the Individualized Coherent Absolute Risk Estimation (iCARE) as a flexible tool for risk model development and comparative model validation and to make projections for population risk stratification.

METHODS

Performance of two recently developed models, one based on the Breast and Prostate Cancer Cohort Consortium analysis (iCARE-BPC3) and another based on a literature review (iCARE-Lit), were compared with two established models (Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool and International Breast Cancer Intervention Study Model) based on classical risk factors in a UK-based cohort of 64 874 white non-Hispanic women (863 patients) age 35-74 years. Risk projections in a target population of US white non-Hispanic women age 50-70 years assessed potential improvements in risk stratification by adding mammographic breast density (MD) and polygenic risk score (PRS).

RESULTS

The best calibrated models were iCARE-Lit (expected to observed number of cases [E/O] = 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.87 to 1.11) for women younger than 50 years, and iCARE-BPC3 (E/O = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.93 to 1.09) for women 50 years or older. Risk projections using iCARE-BPC3 indicated classical risk factors can identify approximately 500 000 women at moderate to high risk (>3% 5-year risk) in the target population. Addition of MD and a 313-variant PRS is expected to increase this number to approximately 3.5 million women, and among them, approximately 153 000 are expected to develop invasive breast cancer within 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

iCARE models based on classical risk factors perform similarly to or better than BCRAT or IBIS in white non-Hispanic women. Addition of MD and PRS can lead to substantial improvements in risk stratification. However, these integrated models require independent prospective validation before broad clinical applications.

Assessment of the risk of developing breast cancer using the Gail model in Asian females: A systematic review

Introduction

Currently, the Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRAT), also known as the Gail model (GM) has been widely recognized and adapted for to study disparity in racial and ethnic groups in America including Asian and Pacific Islander American females. However, its applicability outside America remains uncertain due to diversity in epidemiology and risk factors of breast cancer in populations especially in Asian females. We sought to evaluate the performance of the GM to predict breast cancer risk in Asian countries.

Material and methods

This study identified articles published from 2010 by searching PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar and gray literature. The initial search terms were breast cancer, mammary, carcinoma, tumor, neoplasm, risk assessment tool, BCRAT, breast cancer prediction, Gail model, Asia, and Asian.

Results

The search yielded 20 articles, with 7 articles addressing the AUC and/or the expected (E) to observed (O) ratio of predicted breast cancer risk, representing the accuracy of the GM in the Asian population. One publication reported the sensitivity and specificity but no AUC. None of the studies were accepted as the standard for reporting prognostic models. Several studies reported good prognostic testing and likely developed a new model modifying the items in the instrument.

Conclusion

The results are not strong enough to develop breast cancer risk in the setting of Asian countries. Involving the breast cancer risk of the Asian population in developing a prognostic model with good statistical understanding is particularly important and can reduce flawed or biased models. Identifying the best methods to achieve well-suited prognostic models in the Asian population should be a priority.

Breast cancer chemoprevention: An update on current practice and opportunities for primary care physicians

Several risk assessment models have been validated for the estimation of risk of breast cancer in women. Chemoprevention through hormonal therapy is an effective way to reduce the incidence of breast cancer in women with high risk. Selective estrogen receptor modulators, tamoxifen and raloxifene, are approved for this indication by the United States Food and Drug Administration, and aromatase inhibitors have also shown promise in recent studies. These medications are generally well tolerated, except for reported increased rates of fractures and venous thromboembolic events. Despite strong recommendations from several regulatory bodies, advocacy for chemoprevention has been inadequate in practice, more so among the primary care physicians. Studies have identified several barriers in physicians, patients, and the system, contributing to this problem. Lack of knowledge about risk assessment models and chemoprevention options preclude physicians from prescribing these medications with confidence. Fear of potential adverse events, confusion regarding the purpose of the therapy, and need for continued adherence for five years are among the principal reasons for reduced chemoprevention uptake and early discontinuation among patients. Multifaceted interventions directed at education and training of health care professionals, proper counseling of women at high risk, and promotion of the development of improved medications might help ensure better chemoprevention uptake in the target population.

Comparison of Questionnaire-Based Breast Cancer Prediction Models in the Nurses' Health Study

BACKGROUND

The Gail model and the model developed by Tyrer and Cuzick are two questionnaire-based approaches with demonstrated ability to predict development of breast cancer in a general population.

METHODS

We compared calibration, discrimination, and net reclassification of these models, using data from questionnaires sent every 2 years to 76,922 participants in the Nurses' Health Study between 1980 and 2006, with 4,384 incident invasive breast cancers identified by 2008 (median follow-up, 24 years; range, 1-28 years). In a random one third sample of women, we also compared the performance of these models with predictions from the Rosner-Colditz model estimated from the remaining participants.

RESULTS

Both the Gail and Tyrer-Cuzick models showed evidence of miscalibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow P < 0.001 for each) with notable (P < 0.01) overprediction in higher-risk women (2-year risk above about 1%) and underprediction in lower-risk women (risk below about 0.25%). The Tyrer-Cuzick model had slightly higher C-statistics both overall (P < 0.001) and in age-specific comparisons than the Gail model (overall C, 0.63 for Tyrer-Cuzick vs. 0.61 for the Gail model). Evaluation of net reclassification did not favor either model. In the one third sample, the Rosner-Colditz model had better calibration and discrimination than the other two models. All models had C-statistics <0.60 among women ages ≥70 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Both the Gail and Tyrer-Cuzick models had some ability to discriminate breast cancer cases and noncases, but have limitations in their model fit.

IMPACT

Refinements may be needed to questionnaire-based approaches to predict breast cancer in older and higher-risk women.

Assessment of performance of the Gail model for predicting breast cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

The Gail model has been widely used and validated with conflicting results. The current study aims to evaluate the performance of different versions of the Gail model by means of systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis (TSA).

METHODS

Three systematic review and meta-analyses were conducted. Pooled expected-to-observed (E/O) ratio and pooled area under the curve (AUC) were calculated using the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model. Pooled sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio were evaluated by bivariate mixed-effects model. TSA was also conducted to determine whether the evidence was sufficient and conclusive.

RESULTS

Gail model 1 accurately predicted breast cancer risk in American women (pooled E/O = 1.03; 95% CI 0.76-1.40). The pooled E/O ratios of Caucasian-American Gail model 2 in American, European and Asian women were 0.98 (95% CI 0.91-1.06), 1.07 (95% CI 0.66-1.74) and 2.29 (95% CI 1.95-2.68), respectively. Additionally, Asian-American Gail model 2 overestimated the risk for Asian women about two times (pooled E/O = 1.82; 95% CI 1.31-2.51). TSA showed that evidence in Asian women was sufficient; nonetheless, the results in American and European women need further verification. The pooled AUCs for Gail model 1 in American and European women and Asian females were 0.55 (95% CI 0.53-0.56) and 0.75 (95% CI 0.63-0.88), respectively, and the pooled AUCs of Caucasian-American Gail model 2 for American, Asian and European females were 0.61 (95% CI 0.59-0.63), 0.55 (95% CI 0.52-0.58) and 0.58 (95% CI 0.55-0.62), respectively. The pooled sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio of Gail model 1 were 0.63 (95% CI 0.27-0.89), 0.91 (95% CI 0.87-0.94) and 17.38 (95% CI 2.66-113.70), respectively, and the corresponding indexes of Gail model 2 were 0.35 (95% CI 0.17-0.59), 0.86 (95% CI 0.76-0.92) and 3.38 (95% CI 1.40-8.17), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The Gail model was more accurate in predicting the incidence of breast cancer in American and European females, while far less useful for individual-level risk prediction. Moreover, the Gail model may overestimate the risk in Asian women and the results were further validated by TSA, which is an addition to the three previous systematic review and meta-analyses.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42016047215 .

Assessing the Effects of Participant Preference and Demographics in the Usage of Web-based Survey Questionnaires by Women Attending Screening Mammography in British Columbia

BACKGROUND

Increased usage of Internet applications has allowed for the collection of patient reported outcomes (PROs) and other health data through Web-based communication and questionnaires. While these Web platforms allow for increased speed and scope of communication delivery, there are certain limitations associated with this technology, as survey mode preferences vary across demographic groups.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the impact of demographic factors and participant preferences on the use of a Web-based questionnaire in comparison with more traditional methods (mail and phone) for women participating in screening mammography in British Columbia, Canada.

METHODS

A sample of women attending the Screening Mammography Program of British Columbia (SMPBC) participated in a breast cancer risk assessment project. The study questionnaire was administered through one of three modes (ie, telephone, mail, or website platform). Survey mode preferences and actual methods of response were analyzed for participants recruited from Victoria General Hospital. Both univariate and multivariate analyses were used to investigate the association of demographic factors (ie, age, education level, and ethnicity) with certain survey response types.

RESULTS

A total of 1192 women successfully completed the study questionnaire at Victoria General Hospital. Mail was stated as the most preferred survey mode (509/1192, 42.70%), followed by website platform (422/1192, 35.40%), and telephone (147/1192, 12.33%). Over 80% (955/1192) of participants completed the questionnaire in the mode previously specified as their most preferred; mail was the most common method of response (688/1192, 57.72%). Mail was also the most preferred type of questionnaire response method when participants responded in a mode other than their original preference. The average age of participants who responded via the Web-based platform (age 52.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] 52.1-53.7) was significantly lower than those who used mail and telephone methods (age 55.9, 95% CI 55.2-56.5; P<.001); each decade of increased age was associated with a 0.97-fold decrease in the odds of using the website platform (P<.001). Web-based participation was more likely for those who completed higher levels of education; each interval increase leading to a 1.83 increase in the odds of website platform usage (P<.001). Ethnicity was not shown to play a role in participant preference for the website platform (P=.96).

CONCLUSIONS

It is beneficial to consider participant survey mode preference when planning to collect PROs and other patient health data. Younger participants and those of higher education level were more likely to use the website platform questionnaire; Web-based participation failed to vary across ethnic group. Because mail questionnaires were still the most preferred survey mode, it will be important to employ strategies, such as user-friendly design and Web-based support, to ensure that the patient feedback being collected is representative of the population being served.

Can the breast screening appointment be used to provide risk assessment and prevention advice?

Breast cancer risk is continuing to increase across all societies with rates in countries with traditionally lower risks catching up with the higher rates in the Western world. Although cure rates from breast cancer have continued to improve such that absolute numbers of breast cancer deaths have dropped in many countries despite rising incidence, only some of this can be ascribed to screening with mammography, and debates over the true value of population-based screening continue. As such, enthusiasm for risk-stratified screening is gaining momentum. Guidelines in a number of countries already suggest more frequent screening in certain higher-risk (particularly, familial) groups, but this could be extended to assessing risks across the population. A number of studies have assessed breast cancer risk by using risk algorithms such as the Gail model, Tyrer-Cuzick, and BOADICEA (Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm), but the real questions are when and where such an assessment should take place. Emerging evidence from the PROCAS (Predicting Risk Of Cancer At Screening) study is showing not only that it is feasible to undertake risk assessment at the population screening appointment but that this assessment could allow reduction of screening in lower-risk groups in many countries to 3-yearly screening by using mammographic density-adjusted breast cancer risk.

Reducing Cardiovascular and Cancer Risk: How to Address Global Primary Prevention in Clinical Practice

Emerging evidence suggesting the possibility that interventions able to prevent cardiovascular disease (CVD) may also be effective in the prevention of cancer have recently stimulated great interest in the medical community. In particular, data from both experimental and observational studies have demonstrated that aspirin may play a role in preventing different types of cancer. Although the use of aspirin in the secondary prevention of CVD is well established, aspirin in primary prevention is not systematically recommended because the absolute cardiovascular event reduction is similar to the absolute excess in major bleedings. By adding to its cardiovascular prevention benefits, the potential beneficial effect of aspirin in reducing the incidence of mortality and cancer could tip the balance between risks and benefits of aspirin therapy in primary prevention in favor of the latter and broaden the indication for treatment with aspirin in populations at average risk. Prospective and randomized studies are currently investigating the effect of aspirin in prevention of both cancer and CVD; however, clinical efforts at the individual level to promote the use of aspirin in global (or total) primary prevention already could be made on the basis of a balanced evaluation of the benefit/risk ratio.

Genetic risk assessment for breast and gynecological malignancies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Breast cancer and gynecological cancers impact a significant portion of women each year. Identifying women at high risk is essential for implementation of screening and risk reduction recommendations. Risk assessment for these cancers involves an evaluation of many factors. This review discusses an overview of hereditary breast and gynecological cancers and the process of a cancer genetic risk assessment.

RECENT FINDINGS

Risk assessment models for breast cancer should be used with caution, especially in populations in which they are not validated. Additionally, the BRCAPRO model may underestimate the likelihood of BRCA mutations in certain populations.The utilization of next-generation sequencing panels is increasing. Benefits and limitations of panel testing are described in the literature. There are currently no guidelines for the use of panel testing; however, some reports of institutional experiences and recommendations are available.

SUMMARY

Cancer genetic risk assessment is complex, and models developed to estimate risk may not apply to all populations. Identifying genetic factors related to cancer risk is also becoming increasingly complex with the clinical implementation of panel testing. This testing approach should be critically evaluated by healthcare providers. Further research is needed to create evidence-based guidelines for panel testing and management recommendations for moderately penetrant genes.

Risk determination and prevention of breast cancer

Breast cancer is an increasing public health problem. Substantial advances have been made in the treatment of breast cancer, but the introduction of methods to predict women at elevated risk and prevent the disease has been less successful. Here, we summarize recent data on newer approaches to risk prediction, available approaches to prevention, how new approaches may be made, and the difficult problem of using what we already know to prevent breast cancer in populations. During 2012, the Breast Cancer Campaign facilitated a series of workshops, each covering a specialty area of breast cancer to identify gaps in our knowledge. The risk-and-prevention panel involved in this exercise was asked to expand and update its report and review recent relevant peer-reviewed literature. The enlarged position paper presented here highlights the key gaps in risk-and-prevention research that were identified, together with recommendations for action. The panel estimated from the relevant literature that potentially 50% of breast cancer could be prevented in the subgroup of women at high and moderate risk of breast cancer by using current chemoprevention (tamoxifen, raloxifene, exemestane, and anastrozole) and that, in all women, lifestyle measures, including weight control, exercise, and moderating alcohol intake, could reduce breast cancer risk by about 30%. Risk may be estimated by standard models potentially with the addition of, for example, mammographic density and appropriate single-nucleotide polymorphisms. This review expands on four areas: (a) the prediction of breast cancer risk, (b) the evidence for the effectiveness of preventive therapy and lifestyle approaches to prevention, (c) how understanding the biology of the breast may lead to new targets for prevention, and (d) a summary of published guidelines for preventive approaches and measures required for their implementation. We hope that efforts to fill these and other gaps will lead to considerable advances in our efforts to predict risk and prevent breast cancer over the next 10 years.