Risk prediction for estrogen receptor-specific breast cancers in two large prospective cohorts

Abstract

BackgroundFew published breast cancer (BC) risk prediction models consider the heterogeneity of predictor variables between estrogen-receptor positive (ER+) and negative (ER-) tumors. Using data from two large cohorts, we examined whether modeling this heterogeneity could improve prediction.MethodsWe built two models, for ER+ (ModelER+) and ER- tumors (ModelER-), respectively, in 281,330 women (51% postmenopausal at recruitment) from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition cohort. Discrimination (C-statistic) and calibration (the agreement between predicted and observed tumor risks) were assessed both internally and externally in 82,319 postmenopausal women from the Women’s Health Initiative study. We performed decision curve analysis to compare ModelER+ and the Gail model (ModelGail) regarding their applicability in risk assessment for chemoprevention.ResultsParity, number of full-term pregnancies, age at first full-term pregnancy and body height were only associated with ER+ tumors. Menopausal status, age at menarche and at menopause, hormone replacement therapy, postmenopausal body mass index, and alcohol intake were homogeneously associated with ER+ and ER- tumors. Internal validation yielded a C-statistic of 0.64 for ModelER+ and 0.59 for ModelER-. External validation reduced the C-statistic of ModelER+ (0.59) and ModelGail (0.57). In external evaluation of calibration, ModelER+ outperformed the ModelGail: the former led to a 9% overestimation of the risk of ER+ tumors, while the latter yielded a 22% underestimation of the overall BC risk. Compared with the treat-all strategy, ModelER+ produced equal or higher net benefits irrespective of the benefit-to-harm ratio of chemoprevention, while ModelGail did not produce higher net benefits unless the benefit-to-harm ratio was below 50. The clinical applicability, i.e. the area defined by the net benefit curve and the treat-all and treat-none strategies, was 12.7 × 10− 6 for ModelER+ and 3.0 × 10− 6 for ModelGail.ConclusionsModeling heterogeneous epidemiological risk factors might yield little improvement in BC risk prediction. Nevertheless, a model specifically predictive of ER+ tumor risk could be more applicable than an omnibus model in risk assessment for chemoprevention.

Risk Factors Associated with Breast Cancer among Women in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Unmatched Case–Control Study

“…42,45,46 Most of the well-known risk factors for breast cancer are related to the reproductive life of women: Women with early menarche (before age 12 years) have a higher breast cancer risk. 47 The present study found that the odds of breast cancer increase by 4 times among women with early menarche, which is consistent with studies conducted in India and Morocco. 48,49 This might be due to a woman's risk of breast cancer being related to the estrogen and progesterone made by her ovaries (known as endogenous estrogen and progesterone).…”

MicroRNA‐26a‐5p inhibits breast cancer cell growth by suppressing RNF6 expression

“…Breast cancer is one of the most common malignant tumors in women . According to statistics, the incidence of breast cancer accounts for 7% to 10% of all malignant tumors in the body, and there are about 40 000 people died of breast cancer every year in China, which is next to uterine carcinoma . In addition, breast cancer is a malignant tumor usually occurring in the breast epithelial tissue .…”

Prospective Evaluation of a Breast Cancer Risk Model Integrating Classical Risk Factors and Polygenic Risk in 15 Cohorts from Six Countries

“…The iCARE models predict risk of overall breast cancer (i.e., invasive and in situ ), rather than specific subtypes. Because risk factor associations and the effectiveness of preventive and screening strategies vary by tumor subtypes (e.g., estrogen receptor positive and negative tumors), 34-39 future work on subtype-specific risk predictions could result in more precise identification of women who would benefit most from specific interventions. Finally, the current models were derived and evaluated in studies of women of European ancestry and additional studies are urgently needed to develop and validate models for other populations, for whom alternative models have only been evaluated in relatively small studies.…”