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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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