A systematic review and quality assessment of individualised breast cancer risk prediction models.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Individualised 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.Methods
We 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.Results
We 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.Conclusion
Individualised 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.
SUBMITTER: Louro J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6738106 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related death in Europe and the United States. Survival is strongly related to stage at diagnosis and population-based screening reduces colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Stratifying the population by risk offers the potential to improve the efficiency of screening. In this systematic review we searched Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for primary research studies reporting or validating models to predict future risk of primary colorectal cancer for asymptomatic individuals. A total of 12,808 papers were identified from the literature search and nine through citation searching. Fifty-two risk models were included. Where reported (n = 37), half the models had acceptable-to-good discrimination (the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, AUROC >0.7) in the derivation sample. Calibration was less commonly assessed (n = 21), but overall acceptable. In external validation studies, 10 models showed acceptable discrimination (AUROC 0.71-0.78). These include two with only three variables (age, gender, and BMI; age, gender, and family history of colorectal cancer). A small number of prediction models developed from case-control studies of genetic biomarkers also show some promise but require further external validation using population-based samples. Further research should focus on the feasibility and impact of incorporating such models into stratified screening programmes.
| S-EPMC7610622 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ContextEarly detection of kidney cancer improves survival; however, low prevalence means that population-wide screening may be inefficient. Stratification of the population into risk categories could allow for the introduction of a screening programme tailored to individuals.ObjectiveThis review will identify and compare published models that predict the risk of developing kidney cancer in the general population.Evidence acquisitionA search identified primary research reporting or validating models predicting the risk of kidney cancer in Medline and EMBASE. After screening identified studies for inclusion, we extracted data onto a standardised form. The risk models were classified using the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) guidelines and evaluated using the PROBAST assessment tool.Evidence synthesisThe search identified 15 281 articles. Sixty-two satisfied the inclusion criteria; performance measures were provided for 11 models. Some models predicted the risk of prevalent undiagnosed disease and others future incident disease. Six of the models had been validated, two using external populations. The most commonly included risk factors were age, smoking status, and body mass index. Most of the models had acceptable-to-good discrimination (area under the receiver-operating curve >0.7) in development and validation. Many models also had high specificity; however, several had low sensitivity. The highest performance was seen for the models using only biomarkers to detect kidney cancer; however, these were developed and validated in small case-control studies.ConclusionsWe identified a small number of risk models that could be used to stratify the population according to the risk of kidney cancer. Most exhibit reasonable discrimination, but a few have been validated externally in population-based studies.Patient summaryIn this review, we looked at mathematical models predicting the likelihood of an individual developing kidney cancer. We found several suitable models, using a range of risk factors (such as age and smoking) to predict the risk for individuals. Most of the models identified require further testing in the general population to confirm their usefulness.
| S-EPMC8642244 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRisk prediction models incorporating single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) could lead to individualized prevention of colorectal cancer (CRC). However, the added value of incorporating SNPs into models with only traditional risk factors is still not clear. Hence, our primary aim was to summarize literature on risk prediction models including genetic variants for CRC, while our secondary aim was to evaluate the improvement of discriminatory accuracy when adding SNPs to a prediction model with only traditional risk factors.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review on prediction models incorporating multiple SNPs for CRC risk prediction. We tested whether a significant trend in the increase of Area Under Curve (AUC) according to the number of SNPs could be observed, and estimated the correlation between AUC improvement and number of SNPs. We estimated pooled AUC improvement for SNP-enhanced models compared with non-SNP-enhanced models using random effects meta-analysis, and conducted meta-regression to investigate the association of specific factors with AUC improvement.ResultsWe included 33 studies, 78.79% using genetic risk scores to combine genetic data. We found no significant trend in AUC improvement according to the number of SNPs (p for trend = 0.774), and no correlation between the number of SNPs and AUC improvement (p = 0.695). Pooled AUC improvement was 0.040 (95% CI: 0.035, 0.045), and the number of cases in the study and the AUC of the starting model were inversely associated with AUC improvement obtained when adding SNPs to a prediction model. In addition, models constructed in Asian individuals achieved better AUC improvement with the incorporation of SNPs compared with those developed among individuals of European ancestry.ConclusionsThough not conclusive, our results provide insights on factors influencing discriminatory accuracy of SNP-enhanced models. Genetic variants might be useful to inform stratified CRC screening in the future, but further research is needed.
| S-EPMC8760647 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe effectiveness of breast cancer screening is still under debate. Our objective was to systematically review studies assessing personalized breast cancer screening strategies based on women's individual risk and to conduct a risk of bias assessment.MethodsWe followed the standard methods of The Cochrane Collaboration and PRISMA declaration and searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Clinical Trials databases for studies published in English. The quality of the studies was assessed using the ISPOR-AMCP-NPC Questionnaire and The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Two independent reviewers screened full texts and evaluated the risk of bias.ResultsOut of the 1533 initially retrieved citations, we included 13 studies. Three studies were randomized controlled trials, while nine were mathematical modeling studies, and one was an observational pilot study. The trials are in the recruitment phase and have not yet reported their results. All three trials used breast density and age to define risk groups, and two of them included family history, previous biopsies, and genetic information. Among the mathematical modeling studies, the main risk factors used to define risk groups were breast density, age, family history, and previous biopsies. Six studies used genetic information to define risk groups. The most common outcome measures were the gain in quality-adjusted life years (QALY), absolute costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), while the main outcome in the observational study was the detection rate. In all models, personalized screening strategies were shown to be effective. The randomized trials were of good quality. The modeling studies showed moderate risk of bias but there was wide variability across studies. The observational study showed a low risk of bias but its utility was moderate due to its pilot design and its relatively small scale.ConclusionsThere is some evidence of the effectiveness of screening personalization in terms of QUALYs and ICER from the modeling studies and the observational study. However, evidence is lacking on feasibility and acceptance by the target population.Review registrationPROSPERO: CRD42018110483.
| S-EPMC6913984 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Over the last decade several breast cancer risk alleles have been identified which has led to an increased interest in individualised risk prediction for clinical purposes. METHODS:We investigate the performance of an up-to-date 18 breast cancer risk single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), together with mammographic percentage density (PD), body mass index (BMI) and clinical risk factors in predicting absolute risk of breast cancer, empirically, in a well characterised Swedish case-control study of postmenopausal women. We examined the efficiency of various prediction models at a population level for individualised screening by extending a recently proposed analytical approach for estimating number of cases captured. RESULTS:The performance of a risk prediction model based on an initial set of seven breast cancer risk SNPs is improved by additionally including eleven more recently established breast cancer risk SNPs (P = 4.69 × 10-4). Adding mammographic PD, BMI and all 18 SNPs to a Swedish Gail model improved the discriminatory accuracy (the AUC statistic) from 55% to 62%. The net reclassification improvement was used to assess improvement in classification of women into low, intermediate, and high categories of 5-year risk (P = 8.93 × 10-9). For scenarios we considered, we estimated that an individualised screening strategy based on risk models incorporating clinical risk factors, mammographic density and SNPs, captures 10% more cases than a screening strategy using the same resources, based on age alone. Estimates of numbers of cases captured by screening stratified by age provide insight into how individualised screening programs might appear in practice. CONCLUSIONS:Taken together, genetic risk factors and mammographic density offer moderate improvements to clinical risk factor models for predicting breast cancer.
| S-EPMC3496143 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Colorectal cancer screening reduces colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Risk models based on phenotypic variables have relatively good discrimination in external validation and may improve efficiency of screening. Models incorporating genetic variables may perform better. In this review, we updated our previous review by searching Medline and EMBASE from the end date of that review (January 2014) to February 2019 to identify models incorporating at least one SNP and applicable to asymptomatic individuals in the general population. We identified 23 new models, giving a total of 29. Of those in which the SNP selection was on the basis of published genome-wide association studies, in external or split-sample validation the AUROC was 0.56 to 0.57 for models that included SNPs alone, 0.61 to 0.63 for SNPs in combination with other risk factors, and 0.56 to 0.70 when age was included. Calibration was only reported for four. The addition of SNPs to other risk factors increases discrimination by 0.01 to 0.06. Public health modeling studies suggest that, if determined by risk models, the range of starting ages for screening would be several years greater than using family history alone. Further validation and calibration studies are needed alongside modeling studies to assess the population-level impact of introducing genetic risk-based screening programs.
| S-EPMC7610631 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeWe evaluated the performance of the Gail model for a Korean population and developed a Korean breast cancer risk assessment tool (KoBCRAT) based upon equations developed for the Gail model for predicting breast cancer risk.MethodsUsing 3,789 sets of cases and controls, risk factors for breast cancer among Koreans were identified. Individual probabilities were projected using Gail's equations and Korean hazard data. We compared the 5-year and lifetime risk produced using the modified Gail model which applied Korean incidence and mortality data and the parameter estimators from the original Gail model with those produced using the KoBCRAT. We validated the KoBCRAT based on the expected/observed breast cancer incidence and area under the curve (AUC) using two Korean cohorts: the Korean Multicenter Cancer Cohort (KMCC) and National Cancer Center (NCC) cohort.ResultsThe major risk factors under the age of 50 were family history, age at menarche, age at first full-term pregnancy, menopausal status, breastfeeding duration, oral contraceptive usage, and exercise, while those at and over the age of 50 were family history, age at menarche, age at menopause, pregnancy experience, body mass index, oral contraceptive usage, and exercise. The modified Gail model produced lower 5-year risk for the cases than for the controls (p = 0.017), while the KoBCRAT produced higher 5-year and lifetime risk for the cases than for the controls (p<0.001 and <0.001, respectively). The observed incidence of breast cancer in the two cohorts was similar to the expected incidence from the KoBCRAT (KMCC, p = 0.880; NCC, p = 0.878). The AUC using the KoBCRAT was 0.61 for the KMCC and 0.89 for the NCC cohort.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that the KoBCRAT is a better tool for predicting the risk of breast cancer in Korean women, especially urban women.
| S-EPMC3808381 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo look at the available literature on validated prediction models for contrast induced nephropathy and describe their characteristics.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, and CINAHL (cumulative index to nursing and allied health literature) databases.Review methodsDatabases searched from inception to 2015, and the retrieved reference lists hand searched. Dual reviews were conducted to identify studies published in the English language of prediction models tested with patients that included derivation and validation cohorts. Data were extracted on baseline patient characteristics, procedural characteristics, modelling methods, metrics of model performance, risk of bias, and clinical usefulness. Eligible studies evaluated characteristics of predictive models that identified patients at risk of contrast induced nephropathy among adults undergoing a diagnostic or interventional procedure using conventional radiocontrast media (media used for computed tomography or angiography, and not gadolinium based contrast).Results16 studies were identified, describing 12 prediction models. Substantial interstudy heterogeneity was identified, as a result of different clinical settings, cointerventions, and the timing of creatinine measurement to define contrast induced nephropathy. Ten models were validated internally and six were validated externally. Discrimination varied in studies that were validated internally (C statistic 0.61-0.95) and externally (0.57-0.86). Only one study presented reclassification indices. The majority of higher performing models included measures of pre-existing chronic kidney disease, age, diabetes, heart failure or impaired ejection fraction, and hypotension or shock. No prediction model evaluated its effect on clinical decision making or patient outcomes.ConclusionsMost predictive models for contrast induced nephropathy in clinical use have modest ability, and are only relevant to patients receiving contrast for coronary angiography. Further research is needed to develop models that can better inform patient centred decision making, as well as improve the use of prevention strategies for contrast induced nephropathy.
| S-EPMC4784870 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBreast cancer is the most common cancer in women worldwide, with a great diversity in outcomes among individual patients. The ability to accurately predict a breast cancer outcome is important to patients, physicians, researchers, and policy makers. Many models have been developed and tested in different settings. We systematically reviewed the prognostic models developed and/or validated for patients with breast cancer.MethodsWe conducted a systematic search in four electronic databases and some oncology websites, and a manual search in the bibliographies of the included studies. We identified original studies that were published prior to 1st January 2017, and presented the development and/or validation of models based mainly on clinico-pathological factors to predict mortality and/or recurrence in female breast cancer patients.ResultsFrom the 96 articles selected from 4095 citations found, we identified 58 models, which predicted mortality (n = 28), recurrence (n = 23), or both (n = 7). The most frequently used predictors were nodal status (n = 49), tumour size (n = 42), tumour grade (n = 29), age at diagnosis (n = 24), and oestrogen receptor status (n = 21). Models were developed in Europe (n = 25), Asia (n = 13), North America (n = 12), and Australia (n = 1) between 1982 and 2016. Models were validated in the development cohorts (n = 43) and/or independent populations (n = 17), by comparing the predicted outcomes with the observed outcomes (n = 55) and/or with the outcomes estimated by other models (n = 32), or the outcomes estimated by individual prognostic factors (n = 8). The most commonly used methods were: Cox proportional hazards regression for model development (n = 32); the absolute differences between the predicted and observed outcomes (n = 30) for calibration; and C-index/AUC (n = 44) for discrimination. Overall, the models performed well in the development cohorts but less accurately in some independent populations, particularly in patients with high risk and young and elderly patients. An exception is the Nottingham Prognostic Index, which retains its predicting ability in most independent populations.ConclusionsMany prognostic models have been developed for breast cancer, but only a few have been validated widely in different settings. Importantly, their performance was suboptimal in independent populations, particularly in patients with high risk and in young and elderly patients.
| S-EPMC6419427 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:Numerous prediction models for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) have been developed, but their methodological quality is unknown. The objective is to systematically review all studies describing first-trimester prediction models for GDM and to assess their methodological quality. Methods:MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched until December 2014. Key words for GDM, first trimester of pregnancy, and prediction modeling studies were combined. Prediction models for GDM performed up to 14 weeks of gestation that only include routinely measured predictors were eligible.Data was extracted by the CHecklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS). Data on risk predictors and performance measures were also extracted. Each study was scored for risk of bias. Results:Our search yielded 7761 articles, of which 17 were eligible for review (14 development studies and 3 external validation studies). The definition and prevalence of GDM varied widely across studies. Maternal age and body mass index were the most common predictors. Discrimination was acceptable for all studies. Calibration was reported for four studies. Risk of bias for participant selection, predictor assessment, and outcome assessment was low in general. Moderate to high risk of bias was seen for the number of events, attrition, and analysis. Conclusions:Most studies showed moderate to low methodological quality, and few prediction models for GDM have been externally validated. External validation is recommended to enhance generalizability and assess their true value in clinical practice.
| S-EPMC6457144 | biostudies-literature