Cargando…
Breast cancer pathology and stage are better predicted by risk stratification models that include mammographic density and common genetic variants
PURPOSE: To improve breast cancer risk stratification to enable more targeted early detection/prevention strategies that will better balance risks and benefits of population screening programmes. METHODS: 9362 of 57,902 women in the Predicting-Risk-Of-Cancer-At-Screening (PROCAS) study who were unaf...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer US
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6548748/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30941651 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10549-019-05210-2 |
_version_ | 1783423862242803712 |
---|---|
author | Evans, D. Gareth R. Harkness, Elaine F. Brentnall, Adam R. van Veen, Elke M. Astley, Susan M. Byers, Helen Sampson, Sarah Southworth, Jake Stavrinos, Paula Howell, Sacha J. Maxwell, Anthony J. Howell, Anthony Newman, William G. Cuzick, Jack |
author_facet | Evans, D. Gareth R. Harkness, Elaine F. Brentnall, Adam R. van Veen, Elke M. Astley, Susan M. Byers, Helen Sampson, Sarah Southworth, Jake Stavrinos, Paula Howell, Sacha J. Maxwell, Anthony J. Howell, Anthony Newman, William G. Cuzick, Jack |
author_sort | Evans, D. Gareth R. |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: To improve breast cancer risk stratification to enable more targeted early detection/prevention strategies that will better balance risks and benefits of population screening programmes. METHODS: 9362 of 57,902 women in the Predicting-Risk-Of-Cancer-At-Screening (PROCAS) study who were unaffected by breast cancer at study entry and provided DNA for a polygenic risk score (PRS). The PRS was analysed alongside mammographic density (density-residual-DR) and standard risk factors (Tyrer-Cuzick-model) to assess future risk of breast cancer based on tumour stage receptor expression and pathology. RESULTS: 195 prospective incident breast cancers had a prediction based on TC/DR/PRS which was informative for subsequent breast cancer overall [IQ-OR 2.25 (95% CI 1.89–2.68)] with excellent calibration-(0.99). The model performed particularly well in predicting higher stage stage 2+ IQ-OR 2.69 (95% CI 2.02–3.60) and ER + BCs (IQ-OR 2.36 (95% CI 1.93–2.89)). DR was most predictive for HER2+ and stage 2+ cancers but did not discriminate as well between poor and extremely good prognosis BC as either Tyrer-Cuzick or PRS. In contrast, PRS gave the highest OR for incident stage 2+ cancers, [IQR-OR 1.79 (95% CI 1.30–2.46)]. CONCLUSIONS: A combined approach using Tyrer-Cuzick/DR/PRS provides accurate risk stratification, particularly for poor prognosis cancers. This provides support for reducing the screening interval in high-risk women and increasing the screening interval in low-risk women defined by this model. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s10549-019-05210-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6548748 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Springer US |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-65487482019-06-19 Breast cancer pathology and stage are better predicted by risk stratification models that include mammographic density and common genetic variants Evans, D. Gareth R. Harkness, Elaine F. Brentnall, Adam R. van Veen, Elke M. Astley, Susan M. Byers, Helen Sampson, Sarah Southworth, Jake Stavrinos, Paula Howell, Sacha J. Maxwell, Anthony J. Howell, Anthony Newman, William G. Cuzick, Jack Breast Cancer Res Treat Clinical Trial PURPOSE: To improve breast cancer risk stratification to enable more targeted early detection/prevention strategies that will better balance risks and benefits of population screening programmes. METHODS: 9362 of 57,902 women in the Predicting-Risk-Of-Cancer-At-Screening (PROCAS) study who were unaffected by breast cancer at study entry and provided DNA for a polygenic risk score (PRS). The PRS was analysed alongside mammographic density (density-residual-DR) and standard risk factors (Tyrer-Cuzick-model) to assess future risk of breast cancer based on tumour stage receptor expression and pathology. RESULTS: 195 prospective incident breast cancers had a prediction based on TC/DR/PRS which was informative for subsequent breast cancer overall [IQ-OR 2.25 (95% CI 1.89–2.68)] with excellent calibration-(0.99). The model performed particularly well in predicting higher stage stage 2+ IQ-OR 2.69 (95% CI 2.02–3.60) and ER + BCs (IQ-OR 2.36 (95% CI 1.93–2.89)). DR was most predictive for HER2+ and stage 2+ cancers but did not discriminate as well between poor and extremely good prognosis BC as either Tyrer-Cuzick or PRS. In contrast, PRS gave the highest OR for incident stage 2+ cancers, [IQR-OR 1.79 (95% CI 1.30–2.46)]. CONCLUSIONS: A combined approach using Tyrer-Cuzick/DR/PRS provides accurate risk stratification, particularly for poor prognosis cancers. This provides support for reducing the screening interval in high-risk women and increasing the screening interval in low-risk women defined by this model. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s10549-019-05210-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer US 2019-04-02 2019 /pmc/articles/PMC6548748/ /pubmed/30941651 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10549-019-05210-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. |
spellingShingle | Clinical Trial Evans, D. Gareth R. Harkness, Elaine F. Brentnall, Adam R. van Veen, Elke M. Astley, Susan M. Byers, Helen Sampson, Sarah Southworth, Jake Stavrinos, Paula Howell, Sacha J. Maxwell, Anthony J. Howell, Anthony Newman, William G. Cuzick, Jack Breast cancer pathology and stage are better predicted by risk stratification models that include mammographic density and common genetic variants |
title | Breast cancer pathology and stage are better predicted by risk stratification models that include mammographic density and common genetic variants |
title_full | Breast cancer pathology and stage are better predicted by risk stratification models that include mammographic density and common genetic variants |
title_fullStr | Breast cancer pathology and stage are better predicted by risk stratification models that include mammographic density and common genetic variants |
title_full_unstemmed | Breast cancer pathology and stage are better predicted by risk stratification models that include mammographic density and common genetic variants |
title_short | Breast cancer pathology and stage are better predicted by risk stratification models that include mammographic density and common genetic variants |
title_sort | breast cancer pathology and stage are better predicted by risk stratification models that include mammographic density and common genetic variants |
topic | Clinical Trial |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6548748/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30941651 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10549-019-05210-2 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT evansdgarethr breastcancerpathologyandstagearebetterpredictedbyriskstratificationmodelsthatincludemammographicdensityandcommongeneticvariants AT harknesselainef breastcancerpathologyandstagearebetterpredictedbyriskstratificationmodelsthatincludemammographicdensityandcommongeneticvariants AT brentnalladamr breastcancerpathologyandstagearebetterpredictedbyriskstratificationmodelsthatincludemammographicdensityandcommongeneticvariants AT vanveenelkem breastcancerpathologyandstagearebetterpredictedbyriskstratificationmodelsthatincludemammographicdensityandcommongeneticvariants AT astleysusanm breastcancerpathologyandstagearebetterpredictedbyriskstratificationmodelsthatincludemammographicdensityandcommongeneticvariants AT byershelen breastcancerpathologyandstagearebetterpredictedbyriskstratificationmodelsthatincludemammographicdensityandcommongeneticvariants AT sampsonsarah breastcancerpathologyandstagearebetterpredictedbyriskstratificationmodelsthatincludemammographicdensityandcommongeneticvariants AT southworthjake breastcancerpathologyandstagearebetterpredictedbyriskstratificationmodelsthatincludemammographicdensityandcommongeneticvariants AT stavrinospaula breastcancerpathologyandstagearebetterpredictedbyriskstratificationmodelsthatincludemammographicdensityandcommongeneticvariants AT howellsachaj breastcancerpathologyandstagearebetterpredictedbyriskstratificationmodelsthatincludemammographicdensityandcommongeneticvariants AT maxwellanthonyj breastcancerpathologyandstagearebetterpredictedbyriskstratificationmodelsthatincludemammographicdensityandcommongeneticvariants AT howellanthony breastcancerpathologyandstagearebetterpredictedbyriskstratificationmodelsthatincludemammographicdensityandcommongeneticvariants AT newmanwilliamg breastcancerpathologyandstagearebetterpredictedbyriskstratificationmodelsthatincludemammographicdensityandcommongeneticvariants AT cuzickjack breastcancerpathologyandstagearebetterpredictedbyriskstratificationmodelsthatincludemammographicdensityandcommongeneticvariants |