Cargando…

Practical Problems With Clinical Guidelines for Breast Cancer Prevention Based on Remaining Lifetime Risk

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines for breast cancer chemoprevention and MRI screening involve estimates of remaining lifetime risk (RLR); in the United States, women with an RLR of 20% or higher meet “high-risk” criteria for MRI screening. METHODS: We prospectively followed 1764 women without breast c...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Quante, Anne S., Whittemore, Alice S., Shriver, Tom, Hopper, John L., Strauch, Konstantin, Terry, Mary Beth
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4554256/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25956172
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djv124
_version_ 1782388031565594624
author Quante, Anne S.
Whittemore, Alice S.
Shriver, Tom
Hopper, John L.
Strauch, Konstantin
Terry, Mary Beth
author_facet Quante, Anne S.
Whittemore, Alice S.
Shriver, Tom
Hopper, John L.
Strauch, Konstantin
Terry, Mary Beth
author_sort Quante, Anne S.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines for breast cancer chemoprevention and MRI screening involve estimates of remaining lifetime risk (RLR); in the United States, women with an RLR of 20% or higher meet “high-risk” criteria for MRI screening. METHODS: We prospectively followed 1764 women without breast cancer to compare the RLRs and 10-year risks assigned by the risk models International Breast Cancer Intervention Study (IBIS) and Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA) and to compare both sets of model-assigned 10-year risks to subsequent incidence of breast cancer in the cohort. We used chi-square statistics to assess calibration and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) to assess discrimination. All statistical tests are two-sided. RESULTS: The models classified different proportions of women as high-risk (IBIS = 59.3% vs BOADICEA = 20.1%) using the RLR threshold of 20%. The difference was smaller (IBIS = 52.9% vs BOADICEA = 43.2%) using a 10-year risk threshold of 3.34%. IBIS risks (mean = 4.9%) were better calibrated to observed breast cancer incidence (5.2%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 4.2% to 6.4%) than were those of BOADICEA (mean = 3.7%) overall and within quartiles of model risk (P = .20 by IBIS and P = .07 by BOADICEA). Both models gave similar discrimination, with AUCs of 0.67 (95% CI = 0.61 to 0.73) using IBIS and 0.68 (95% CI = 0.62 to 0.74) using BOADICEA. Model sensitivities at thresholds for a 20% false-positive rate were also similar, with 41.8% using IBIS and 38.0% using BOADICEA. CONCLUSION: RLR-based guidelines for high-risk women are limited by discordance between commonly used risk models. Guidelines based on short-term risks would be more useful, as models are generally developed and validated under a short fixed time horizon (≤10 years).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4554256
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-45542562015-09-02 Practical Problems With Clinical Guidelines for Breast Cancer Prevention Based on Remaining Lifetime Risk Quante, Anne S. Whittemore, Alice S. Shriver, Tom Hopper, John L. Strauch, Konstantin Terry, Mary Beth J Natl Cancer Inst Article BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines for breast cancer chemoprevention and MRI screening involve estimates of remaining lifetime risk (RLR); in the United States, women with an RLR of 20% or higher meet “high-risk” criteria for MRI screening. METHODS: We prospectively followed 1764 women without breast cancer to compare the RLRs and 10-year risks assigned by the risk models International Breast Cancer Intervention Study (IBIS) and Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA) and to compare both sets of model-assigned 10-year risks to subsequent incidence of breast cancer in the cohort. We used chi-square statistics to assess calibration and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) to assess discrimination. All statistical tests are two-sided. RESULTS: The models classified different proportions of women as high-risk (IBIS = 59.3% vs BOADICEA = 20.1%) using the RLR threshold of 20%. The difference was smaller (IBIS = 52.9% vs BOADICEA = 43.2%) using a 10-year risk threshold of 3.34%. IBIS risks (mean = 4.9%) were better calibrated to observed breast cancer incidence (5.2%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 4.2% to 6.4%) than were those of BOADICEA (mean = 3.7%) overall and within quartiles of model risk (P = .20 by IBIS and P = .07 by BOADICEA). Both models gave similar discrimination, with AUCs of 0.67 (95% CI = 0.61 to 0.73) using IBIS and 0.68 (95% CI = 0.62 to 0.74) using BOADICEA. Model sensitivities at thresholds for a 20% false-positive rate were also similar, with 41.8% using IBIS and 38.0% using BOADICEA. CONCLUSION: RLR-based guidelines for high-risk women are limited by discordance between commonly used risk models. Guidelines based on short-term risks would be more useful, as models are generally developed and validated under a short fixed time horizon (≤10 years). Oxford University Press 2015-05-08 /pmc/articles/PMC4554256/ /pubmed/25956172 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djv124 Text en © The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle Article
Quante, Anne S.
Whittemore, Alice S.
Shriver, Tom
Hopper, John L.
Strauch, Konstantin
Terry, Mary Beth
Practical Problems With Clinical Guidelines for Breast Cancer Prevention Based on Remaining Lifetime Risk
title Practical Problems With Clinical Guidelines for Breast Cancer Prevention Based on Remaining Lifetime Risk
title_full Practical Problems With Clinical Guidelines for Breast Cancer Prevention Based on Remaining Lifetime Risk
title_fullStr Practical Problems With Clinical Guidelines for Breast Cancer Prevention Based on Remaining Lifetime Risk
title_full_unstemmed Practical Problems With Clinical Guidelines for Breast Cancer Prevention Based on Remaining Lifetime Risk
title_short Practical Problems With Clinical Guidelines for Breast Cancer Prevention Based on Remaining Lifetime Risk
title_sort practical problems with clinical guidelines for breast cancer prevention based on remaining lifetime risk
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4554256/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25956172
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djv124
work_keys_str_mv AT quanteannes practicalproblemswithclinicalguidelinesforbreastcancerpreventionbasedonremaininglifetimerisk
AT whittemorealices practicalproblemswithclinicalguidelinesforbreastcancerpreventionbasedonremaininglifetimerisk
AT shrivertom practicalproblemswithclinicalguidelinesforbreastcancerpreventionbasedonremaininglifetimerisk
AT hopperjohnl practicalproblemswithclinicalguidelinesforbreastcancerpreventionbasedonremaininglifetimerisk
AT strauchkonstantin practicalproblemswithclinicalguidelinesforbreastcancerpreventionbasedonremaininglifetimerisk
AT terrymarybeth practicalproblemswithclinicalguidelinesforbreastcancerpreventionbasedonremaininglifetimerisk