Dataset Information

Comparative Validation of Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Models and Projections for Future Risk Stratification.

ABSTRACT:

Background

External validation of risk models is critical for risk-stratified breast cancer prevention. We used the Individualized Coherent Absolute Risk Estimation (iCARE) as a flexible tool for risk model development and comparative model validation and to make projections for population risk stratification.

Methods

Performance of two recently developed models, one based on the Breast and Prostate Cancer Cohort Consortium analysis (iCARE-BPC3) and another based on a literature review (iCARE-Lit), were compared with two established models (Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool and International Breast Cancer Intervention Study Model) based on classical risk factors in a UK-based cohort of 64 874 white non-Hispanic women (863 patients) age 35-74 years. Risk projections in a target population of US white non-Hispanic women age 50-70 years assessed potential improvements in risk stratification by adding mammographic breast density (MD) and polygenic risk score (PRS).

Results

The best calibrated models were iCARE-Lit (expected to observed number of cases [E/O] = 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.87 to 1.11) for women younger than 50 years, and iCARE-BPC3 (E/O = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.93 to 1.09) for women 50 years or older. Risk projections using iCARE-BPC3 indicated classical risk factors can identify approximately 500 000 women at moderate to high risk (>3% 5-year risk) in the target population. Addition of MD and a 313-variant PRS is expected to increase this number to approximately 3.5 million women, and among them, approximately 153 000 are expected to develop invasive breast cancer within 5 years.

Conclusions

iCARE models based on classical risk factors perform similarly to or better than BCRAT or IBIS in white non-Hispanic women. Addition of MD and PRS can lead to substantial improvements in risk stratification. However, these integrated models require independent prospective validation before broad clinical applications.

SUBMITTER: Pal Choudhury P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7073933 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPublished genetic risk scores for breast cancer (BC) so far have been based on a relatively small number of markers and are not necessarily using the full potential of large-scale Genome-Wide Association Studies. This study aimed to identify an efficient polygenic predictor for BC based on best available evidence and to assess its potential for personalized risk prediction and screening strategies.MethodsFour different genetic risk scores (two already published and two newly developed) and their combinations (metaGRS) were compared in the subsets of two population-based biobank cohorts: the UK Biobank (UKBB, 3157 BC cases, 43,827 controls) and Estonian Biobank (EstBB, 317 prevalent and 308 incident BC cases in 32,557 women). In addition, correlations between different genetic risk scores and their associations with BC risk factors were studied in both cohorts.ResultsThe metaGRS that combines two genetic risk scores (metaGRS2 - based on 75 and 898 Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms, respectively) had the strongest association with prevalent BC status in both cohorts. One standard deviation difference in the metaGRS2 corresponded to an Odds Ratio = 1.6 (95% CI 1.54 to 1.66, p = 9.7*10- 135) in the UK Biobank and accounting for family history marginally attenuated the effect (Odds Ratio = 1.58, 95% CI 1.53 to 1.64, p = 7.8*10- 129). In the EstBB cohort, the hazard ratio of incident BC for the women in the top 5% of the metaGRS2 compared to women in the lowest 50% was 4.2 (95% CI 2.8 to 6.2, p = 8.1*10- 13). The different GRSs were only moderately correlated with each other and were associated with different known predictors of BC. The classification of genetic risk for the same individual varied considerably depending on the chosen GRS.ConclusionsWe have shown that metaGRS2, that combined on the effects of more than 900 SNPs, provided best predictive ability for breast cancer in two different population-based cohorts. The strength of the effect of metaGRS2 indicates that the GRS could potentially be used to develop more efficient strategies for breast cancer screening for genotyped women.

Project description:IntroductionNumerous prediction models have been developed to support treatment-related decisions for breast cancer patients. External validation, a prerequisite for implementation in clinical practice, has been performed for only a few models. This study aims to externally validate published clinical prediction models using population-based Dutch data.MethodsPatient-, tumor- and treatment-related data were derived from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR). Model performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), scaled Brier score, and model calibration. Net benefit across applicable risk thresholds was evaluated with decision curve analysis.ResultsAfter assessing 922 models, 87 (9%) were included for validation. Models were excluded due to an incomplete model description (n = 262 (28%)), lack of required data (n = 521 (57%)), previously validated or developed with NCR data (n = 45 (5%)), or the associated NCR sample size was insufficient (n = 7 (1%)). The included models predicted survival (33 (38%) overall, 27 (31%) breast cancer-specific, and 3 (3%) other cause-specific), locoregional recurrence (n = 7 (8%)), disease free survival (n = 7 (8%)), metastases (n = 5 (6%)), lymph node involvement (n = 3 (3%)), pathologic complete response (n = 1 (1%)), and surgical margins (n = 1 (1%)). Seven models (8%) showed poor (AUC<0.6), 39 (45%) moderate (AUC:0.6-0.7), 38 (46%) good (AUC:0.7-0.9), and 3 (3%) excellent (AUC≥0.9) discrimination. Using the scaled Brier score, worse performance than an uninformative model was found in 34 (39%) models.ConclusionComprehensive registry data supports broad validation of published prediction models. Model performance varies considerably in new patient populations, affirming the importance of external validation studies before applying models in clinical practice. Well performing models could be clinically useful in a Dutch setting after careful impact evaluation.