Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A systematic review of breast cancer incidence risk prediction models with meta-analysis of their performance

  • Review
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A risk prediction model is a statistical tool for estimating the probability that a currently healthy individual with specific risk factors will develop a condition in the future such as breast cancer. Reliably accurate prediction models can inform future disease burdens, health policies and individual decisions. Breast cancer prediction models containing modifiable risk factors, such as alcohol consumption, BMI or weight, condom use, exogenous hormone use and physical activity, are of particular interest to women who might be considering how to reduce their risk of breast cancer and clinicians developing health policies to reduce population incidence rates. We performed a systematic review to identify and evaluate the performance of prediction models for breast cancer that contain modifiable factors. A protocol was developed and a sensitive search in databases including MEDLINE and EMBASE was conducted in June 2010. Extensive use was made of reference lists. Included were any articles proposing or validating a breast cancer prediction model in a general female population, with no language restrictions. Duplicate data extraction and quality assessment were conducted. Results were summarised qualitatively, and where possible meta-analysis of model performance statistics was undertaken. The systematic review found 17 breast cancer models, each containing a different but often overlapping set of modifiable and other risk factors, combined with an estimated baseline risk that was also often different. Quality of reporting was generally poor, with characteristics of included participants and fitted model results often missing. Only four models received independent validation in external data, most notably the ‘Gail 2’ model with 12 validations. None of the models demonstrated consistently outstanding ability to accurately discriminate between those who did and those who did not develop breast cancer. For example, random-effects meta-analyses of the performance of the ‘Gail 2’ model showed the average C statistic was 0.63 (95% CI 0.59–0.67), and the expected/observed ratio of events varied considerably across studies (95% prediction interval for E/O ratio when the model was applied in practice was 0.75–1.19). There is a need for models with better predictive performance but, given the large amount of work already conducted, further improvement of existing models based on conventional risk factors is perhaps unlikely. Research to identify new risk factors with large additionally predictive ability is therefore needed, alongside clearer reporting and continual validation of new models as they develop.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Steyerberg EW, Vickers AJ, Cook NR, Gerds T, Gonen M, Obuchowski N et al (2010) Assessing the performance of predictive models. Epidemiology 21(1):128–138

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Meads CA, Cnossen JS, Meher S, Juarez-Garcia A, ter Riet G, Duley L et al (2008) Methods of prediction and prevention of pre-eclampsia:systematic reviews of accuracy and effectiveness literature with economic modelling. Health Technol Assess 12(6):1–270

    Google Scholar 

  3. Jacobi C, de Bock GH, Seigerink B, van Asperen CJ (2009) Differences and similarities in breast cancer risk assessment models in clinical practice: which model to choose? Breast Cancer Res Treat 115:381–390

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Royston P, Moons KG, Altman DG, Vergouwe Y (2009) Prognosis and prognostic research: Developing a prognostic model. Br Med J 338:b604

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Williams C, Brunskill S, Altman D, Briggs A, Campbell H, Clarke M et al. (2006) Cost-effectiveness of using prognostic information to select women with breast cancer for adjuvant systemic therapy. Health Technol Assess 10(34)

  6. Altman D (2009) Prognostic models: a methodological framework and review of models for breast cancer. Cancer Invest 27:235–243

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Chen WY, Colditz GA (2007) Risk factors and hormone-receptor status: epidemiology, risk-prediction models and treatment implications for breast cancer. Nat Clin Pract Oncol 4(7):415–423

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Tice JA, Cummings SR, Smith-Bindman R, Ichikawa L, Barlow WE, Kerlikowske K et al (2008) Using clinical factors and mammographic breast density to estimate breast cancer risk: development and validation of a new predictive model. Ann Intern Med 148(5):337–347

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Rosner B, Colditz GA, Iglehart JD, Hankinson SE (2008) Risk prediction models with incomplete data with application to prediction of estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer: prospective data from the Nurses’ Health Study. Breast Cancer Res 10(4):R55

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. DerSimonian R, Laird N (1986) Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7:177–188

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Stata Corporation. Statistical software release 11.0. 2009. College Station, Texas

  12. Riley RD, Higgins JP, Deeks JJ (2011) The interpretation of random effects meta-analysis. Br Med J 342:d549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Rockhill B, Byrne C, Rosner B, Louie MM, Colditz G (2003) Breast cancer risk prediction with a log-incidence model: evaluation of accuracy. J Clin Epidemiol 56(9):856–861

    Google Scholar 

  14. Viallon V, Ragusa S, Clavel-Chapelon F, Bénichou J (2009) How to evaluate the calibration of a disease risk prediction tool. Stat Med 28(6):901–916

    Google Scholar 

  15. Arne GN (2009) Breast cancer risk assessments to barrier contraception exposure. A new approach. Makedonska Akademija na Naukite i Umetnostite Oddelenie Za Bioloshki i Meditsinski Nauki Prilozi 30(1):217–232

    Google Scholar 

  16. Barlow WE, White E, Ballard-Barbash R, Vacek PM, Titus-Ernstoff L, Carney PA et al (2006) Prospective breast cancer risk prediction model for women undergoing screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 98(17):1204–1214

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Cook NR, Rosner BA, Hankinson SE, Colditz GA (2009) Mammographic screening and risk factors for breast cancer. Am J Epidemiol 170(11):1422–1432

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Boyle PM (2004) Contribution of three components to individual cancer risk predicting breast cancer risk in Italy. Eur J Cancer Prev 13(3):183–191

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Chen J, Pee D, Ayyagari R, Graubard B, Schairer C, Byrne C et al (2006) Projecting absolute invasive breast cancer risk in white women with a model that includes mammographic density. J Natl Cancer Inst 98(17):1215–1226

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Colditz GA, Rosner B (2000) Cumulative risk of breast cancer to age 70 years according to risk factor status: data from the Nurses Health Study. Am J Epidemiol 152(10):950–964

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Rosner B, Colditz GA, Willett WC (1994) Reproductive risk factors in a prospective study of breast cancer: the Nurses’ Health Study. Am J Epidemiol 139(8):819–835

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Decarli A, Calza S, Masala G, Specchia C, Palli D, Gail MH et al (2006) Gail model for prediction of absolute risk of invasive breast cancer: independent evaluation in the Florence-European Prospective Investigation Into Cancer and Nutrition cohort. J Natl Cancer Inst 98(23):1686–1693

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Gail MH, Brinton LA, Byar DP, Corle DK, Green SB, Schairer C et al (1989) Projecting individualised probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst 81:1879–1886

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Constantino JP, Gail MH, Pee D, Anderson S, Redmond CK, Benichou J et al (2010) Validation studies for models projecting the risk of invasive and total breast cancer incidence. J Natl Cancer Inst 91(18):1541–1548

    Google Scholar 

  25. Gail MH, Constantino JP, Pee D, Bondy M, Newmon L, Selvan M et al (2007) Projecting individualized absolute invasive breast cancer risk in African American women. J Natl Cancer Inst 99(23):1782–1792

    Google Scholar 

  26. Novotny J, Pecen L, Petruzelka L, Svobodnik A, Dusek L, Danes J et al (2006) Breast cancer risk assessment in the Czech female population—an adjustment of the original Gail model. Breast Cancer Res Treat 95:29–35

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Rosner B, Colditz GA (1996) Nurses Health study: log-incidence mathematical model of breast cancer incidence. J Natl Cancer Inst 88(6):359–364

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Tice JA, Cummings SR, Ziv E, Kerlikowske K (2005) Mammographic breast density and the Gail model for breast cancer risk prediction in a screening population. Breast Cancer Res Treat 94(2):115–122

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Tyrer J, Duffy SW, Cuzick J. A breast cancer prediction model incorporating familial and personal risk factors. [Erratum appears in Stat Med. 2005 Jan 15;24(1):156]. Stat Med 2004; 23(7):1111–1130

  30. Wacholder S, Hartge P, Prentice R, Garcia-Closas M, Feigelson HS, Diver WR et al (2010) Performance of common genetic variants in breast-cancer risk models. N Engl J Med 362(11):986–993

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Bondy MLL (1994) Validation of a breast cancer risk assessment model in women with a positive family history. J Natl Cancer Inst 86(8):20

    Google Scholar 

  32. Costantino JP, Gail MH, Pee D, Anderson S, Redmond CK, Benichou J et al (1999) Validation of studies for models projecting the risk of invasive and total breast cancer incidence. J Natl Cancer Inst 91(18):1541–1548

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Spiegelman DC (1994) Validation of the Gail et al. model for predicting individual breast cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst 86(8):20

    Google Scholar 

  34. Amir E, Evans DG, Shenton A, Lalloo F, Moran A, Boggis C et al (2003) Evaluation of breast cancer risk assessment packages in the family history evaluation and screening programme. J Med Genet 40(11):807–814

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Rockhill B, Spiegelman D, Byrne C, Hunter DJ, Colditz GA (2001) Validation of the Gail et al. model of breast cancer risk prediction and implications for chemoprevention. J Natl Cancer Inst 93(5):358–366

    Google Scholar 

  36. Schonfeld SJ, Pee D, Greenlee RT, Hartge P, Lacy JV Jr, Park Y et al (2010) Effect of changing breast cancer incidence rates on the calibration of the Gail model. J Clin Oncol 28(14):2411–2417

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Ulusoy C, Kepenekci I, Kose K, Aydintug S, Cam R (2010) Applicability of the gail model for breast cancer risk assessment in turkish female population and evaluation of breastfeeding as a risk factor. Breast Cancer Res Treat 120(2):419–424

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Amir EFreedman (2010) Assessing women at high risk of breast cancer: A review of risk assessment models. J Natl Cancer Inst 102(10):680–691

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Diez Collar MC, Ortega MP, Villanueva OR, Albaladejo VR, Astasio AP, Calle Puron ME et al (2000) Epidemiological characteristics of breast cancer development in pre and postmenopausal women [Spanish]. Med Clin 115(8):281–286

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Mallett S, Royston P, Dutton S, Waters R, Altman D (2010) Reporting methods in studies developing prognostic models in cancer: a review. BMC Med 8:20

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Mallett S, Royston P, Dutton S, Waters R, Altman D (2010) Reporting performance of prognostic models in cancer: a review. BMC Med 8:21

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Janssens AC, Ioannidis J, van Duijn CM, Little J, Khoury MJ et al (2011) Strengthening the Reporting of Genetic Risk Prediction Studies: The GRIPS Statement. PLoS Med 8(3):e1000420

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Collins G. Opening up multivariable prediction models. http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2011/08/03/gary-collins-opening-up-multivariable-prediction-models. Accessed September 2011

  44. Bleeker SE, Moll HA, Steyerberg EW, Donders AR, Derksen-Lubsen G, Grobbee DE et al (2003) External validation is necessary in prediction research: A clinical example. J Clin Epidemiol 56:826–832

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Steyerberg EW, Mushkudiani N, Perel P, Butcher I, Lu J, McHugh GS et al (2008) Predicting outcome after traumatic brain injury: development and international validation of prognostic scores based on admission characteristics. PLoS Med 5:e165

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Agrawal R, Sharma S, Bekir J, Conway G, Bailey J, Balen AH et al (2004) Prevalence of polycystic ovaries and polycystic ovary syndrome in lesbian women compared with heterosexual women. Fertil Steril 82(5):1352–1357

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Elmore JGF (2006) The risk of cancer risk prediction: “What is my risk of getting breast cancer?”. J Natl Cancer Inst 98(23):06

    Google Scholar 

  48. Cook NR (2010) Assessing the incremental role of novel and emerging risk factors. Curr Cardiovasc Risk Rep 4:112–119

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Pencina MJ, D’Agostino RBS, D’Agostino RBJ, Vasan RS (2008) Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: from area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond. Stat Med 27:157–172

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Dr Gill Lawrence for assistance and supervision at the beginning of this project.

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, Yvonne Carter Building, 58 Turner St, Whitechapel, London, E1 2AB, UK

    Catherine Meads

  2. Unit of Public Health, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Birmingham, B15 2TT, Birmingham, UK

    Ikhlaaq Ahmed & Richard D. Riley

Authors
  1. Catherine Meads
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ikhlaaq Ahmed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Richard D. Riley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Catherine Meads.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Meads, C., Ahmed, I. & Riley, R.D. A systematic review of breast cancer incidence risk prediction models with meta-analysis of their performance. Breast Cancer Res Treat 132, 365–377 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-011-1818-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-011-1818-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation