53
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    8
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The use of the Gail model, body mass index and SNPs to predict breast cancer among women with abnormal (BI-RADS 4) mammograms

      research-article

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Mammography screening results in a significant number of false-positives. The use of pretest breast cancer risk factors to guide follow-up of abnormal mammograms could improve the positive predictive value of screening. We evaluated the use of the Gail model, body mass index (BMI), and genetic markers to predict cancer diagnosis among women with abnormal mammograms. We also examined the extent to which pretest risk factors could reclassify women without cancer below the biopsy threshold.

          Methods

          We recruited a prospective cohort of women referred for biopsy with abnormal (BI-RADS 4) mammograms according to the American College of Radiology’s Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). Breast cancer risk factors were assessed prior to biopsy. A validated panel of 12 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with breast cancer were measured. Logistic regression was used to assess the association of Gail risk factors, BMI and SNPs with cancer diagnosis (invasive or ductal carcinoma in situ). Model discrimination was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, and calibration was assessed using the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test. The distribution of predicted probabilities of a cancer diagnosis were compared for women with or without breast cancer.

          Results

          In the multivariate model, age (odds ratio (OR) = 1.05; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.03 to 1.08; P < 0.001), SNP panel relative risk (OR = 2.30; 95% CI, 1.06 to 4.99, P = 0.035) and BMI (≥30 kg/m 2 versus <25 kg/m 2; OR = 2.20; 95% CI, 1.05 to 4.58; P = 0.036) were significantly associated with breast cancer diagnosis. Older women were more likely than younger women to be diagnosed with breast cancer. The SNP panel relative risk remained strongly associated with breast cancer diagnosis after multivariable adjustment. Higher BMI was also strongly associated with increased odds of a breast cancer diagnosis. Obese women (OR = 2.20; 95% CI, 1.05 to 4.58; P = 0.036) had more than twice the odds of cancer diagnosis compared to women with a BMI <25 kg/m 2. The SNP panel appeared to have predictive ability among both white and black women.

          Conclusions

          Breast cancer risk factors, including BMI and genetic markers, are predictive of cancer diagnosis among women with BI-RADS 4 mammograms. Using pretest risk factors to guide follow-up of abnormal mammograms could reduce the burden of false-positive mammograms.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13058-014-0509-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references59

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A genome-wide association study identifies alleles in FGFR2 associated with risk of sporadic postmenopausal breast cancer.

          We conducted a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of breast cancer by genotyping 528,173 SNPs in 1,145 postmenopausal women of European ancestry with invasive breast cancer and 1,142 controls. We identified four SNPs in intron 2 of FGFR2 (which encodes a receptor tyrosine kinase and is amplified or overexpressed in some breast cancers) that were highly associated with breast cancer and confirmed this association in 1,776 affected individuals and 2,072 controls from three additional studies. Across the four studies, the association with all four SNPs was highly statistically significant (P(trend) for the most strongly associated SNP (rs1219648) = 1.1 x 10(-10); population attributable risk = 16%). Four SNPs at other loci most strongly associated with breast cancer in the initial GWAS were not associated in the replication studies. Our summary results from the GWAS are available online in a form that should speed the identification of additional risk loci.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually.

            To assist in medical counseling, we present a method to estimate the chance that a woman with given age and risk factors will develop breast cancer over a specified interval. The risk factors used were age at menarche, age at first live birth, number of previous biopsies, and number of first-degree relatives with breast cancer. A model of relative risks for various combinations of these factors was developed from case-control data from the Breast Cancer Detection Demonstration Project (BCDDP). The model allowed for the fact that relative risks associated with previous breast biopsies were smaller for women aged 50 or more than for younger women. Thus, the proportional hazards models for those under age 50 and for those of age 50 or more. The baseline age-specific hazard rate, which is the rate for a patient without identified risk factors, is computed as the product of the observed age-specific composite hazard rate times the quantity 1 minus the attributable risk. We calculated individualized breast cancer probabilities from information on relative risks and the baseline hazard rate. These calculations take competing risks and the interval of risk into account. Our data were derived from women who participated in the BCDDP and who tended to return for periodic examinations. For this reason, the risk projections given are probably most reliable for counseling women who plan to be examined about once a year.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

              (2009)
              Update of the 2002 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation statement on screening for breast cancer in the general population. The USPSTF examined the evidence on the efficacy of 5 screening modalities in reducing mortality from breast cancer: film mammography, clinical breast examination, breast self-examination, digital mammography, and magnetic resonance imaging in order to update the 2002 recommendation. To accomplish this update, the USPSTF commissioned 2 studies: 1) a targeted systematic evidence review of 6 selected questions relating to benefits and harms of screening, and 2) a decision analysis that used population modeling techniques to compare the expected health outcomes and resource requirements of starting and ending mammography screening at different ages and using annual versus biennial screening intervals. The USPSTF recommends against routine screening mammography in women aged 40 to 49 years. The decision to start regular, biennial screening mammography before the age of 50 years should be an individual one and take into account patient context, including the patient's values regarding specific benefits and harms. (Grade C recommendation) The USPSTF recommends biennial screening mammography for women between the ages of 50 and 74 years. (Grade B recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the additional benefits and harms of screening mammography in women 75 years or older. (I statement) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the additional benefits and harms of clinical breast examination beyond screening mammography in women 40 years or older. (I statement) The USPSTF recommends against clinicians teaching women how to perform breast self-examination. (Grade D recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess additional benefits and harms of either digital mammography or magnetic resonance imaging instead of film mammography as screening modalities for breast cancer. (I statement).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                amccarthy8@partners.org
                brad.keller@uphs.upenn.edu
                despina.kontos@uphs.upenn.edu
                ljboghossian@gmail.com
                eomcguire@gmail.com
                mnbristol@partners.org
                jinboche@mail.med.upenn.edu
                susan.domchek@uphs.upenn.edu
                karmstrong6@partners.org
                Journal
                Breast Cancer Res
                Breast Cancer Research : BCR
                BioMed Central (London )
                1465-5411
                1465-542X
                8 January 2015
                8 January 2015
                2015
                : 17
                : 1
                : 1
                Affiliations
                [ ]Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, 50 Staniford Street, 940F, Boston, MA 02114 USA
                [ ]Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA USA
                [ ]Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA USA
                [ ]Department of General Internal Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA USA
                [ ]Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA USA
                Article
                509
                10.1186/s13058-014-0509-4
                4311477
                25567532
                abe783b7-ee96-46de-91a7-2ae8774f0857
                © McCarthy et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 13 February 2014
                : 18 December 2014
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2015

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                Oncology & Radiotherapy

                Comments

                Comment on this article