A systematic review and quality assessment of individualised breast cancer risk prediction models

Abstract

BackgroundIndividualised breast cancer risk prediction models may be key for planning risk-based screening approaches. Our aim was to conduct a systematic review and quality assessment of these models addressed to women in the general population.MethodsWe followed the Cochrane Collaboration methods searching in Medline, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library databases up to February 2018. We included studies reporting a model to estimate the individualised risk of breast cancer in women in the general population. Study quality was assessed by two independent reviewers. Results are narratively summarised.ResultsWe included 24 studies out of the 2976 citations initially retrieved. Twenty studies were based on four models, the Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRAT), the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC), the Rosner & Colditz model, and the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study (IBIS), whereas four studies addressed other original models. Four of the studies included genetic information. The quality of the studies was moderate with some limitations in the discriminative power and data inputs. A maximum AUROC value of 0.71 was reported in the study conducted in a screening context.ConclusionIndividualised risk prediction models are promising tools for implementing risk-based screening policies. However, it is a challenge to recommend any of them since they need further improvement in their quality and discriminatory capacity.

Using Whole Breast Ultrasound Tomography to Improve Breast Cancer Risk Assessment: A Novel Risk Factor Based on the Quantitative Tissue Property of Sound Speed

“…Our results suggest that VASS has a stronger dependence on breast cancer risk than MPD and therefore has the potential to increase precision in standard risk models. Current methods of measuring BD based on mammography, either by radiologist's estimation or computer-assisted measurement, limit the risk stratification achievable by the inclusion of BD in risk models [2]. Potential reasons for the stronger observed effects for VASS versus MPD include the true volumetric nature of BD assessment by UST of the uncompressed breast.…”

“…Mammographic percent density (MPD) is a strong breast cancer risk factor that typically confers a three-to fivefold elevation in risk for the highest versus lowest levels of density [1]. Given that breast cancer risk prediction models under-perform with regard to estimating individual risk, researchers have attempted to incorporate MPD into such models to improve their performance (as recently reviewed in Louro et al [2]). Multiple studies [2] have found that adding MPD to risk models improves breast cancer risk prediction, and efforts to incorporate MPD in newer risk models are ongoing [3,4]; however, to date, improvements in discriminatory accuracy have been modest.…”

Adjuvant Therapy in Adrenocortical Carcinoma: Reflections and Future Directions

“…This may require worldwide multicenter collaborations to reach solid conclusions. For example, prognostic risk calculators have been in use for risk predication in other malignancies [69,70]. Although we have some prognostic calculators for ACC [36,46,47], none have been prospectively validated, which limits their use in decision-making.…”

Breast cancer risk assessment and management programs: A practical guide

“…Risk estimation in this setting rests on the use of statistical models; many are available and can be accessed with ease online 30‐34 . Selection of an appropriate risk model is somewhat dependent upon the population served and the reason for clinical implementation, and none is clearly superior 35,36 . The earliest validated risk assessment model was developed by Gail et.al., 37 and over the years, it has been re‐evaluated many times and has shown good calibration with marginal discrimination, particularly for ER‐negative breast cancer 38 .…”