6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Prospective validation of the BOADICEA multifactorial breast cancer risk prediction model in a large prospective cohort study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          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

          Background

          The multifactorial Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA) breast cancer risk prediction model has been recently extended to consider all established breast cancer risk factors. We assessed the clinical validity of the model in a large independent prospective cohort.

          Methods

          We validated BOADICEA (V.6) in the Swedish KARolinska Mammography Project for Risk Prediction of Breast Cancer (KARMA) cohort including 66 415 women of European ancestry (median age 54 years, IQR 45–63; 816 incident breast cancers) without previous cancer diagnosis. We calculated 5-year risks on the basis of questionnaire-based risk factors, pedigree-structured first-degree family history, mammographic density (BI-RADS), a validated breast cancer polygenic risk score (PRS) based on 313-SNPs, and pathogenic variant status in 8 breast cancer susceptibility genes: BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, CHEK2, ATM, RAD51C, RAD51D and BARD1. Calibration was assessed by comparing observed and expected risks in deciles of predicted risk and the calibration slope. The discriminatory ability was assessed using the area under the curve (AUC).

          Results

          Among the individual model components, the PRS contributed most to breast cancer risk stratification. BOADICEA was well calibrated in predicting the risks for low-risk and high-risk women when all, or subsets of risk factors are included in the risk prediction. Discrimination was maximised when all risk factors are considered (AUC=0.70, 95% CI: 0.66 to 0.73; expected-to-observed ratio=0.88, 95% CI: 0.75 to 1.04; calibration slope=0.97, 95% CI: 0.95 to 0.99). The full multifactorial model classified 3.6% women as high risk (5-year risk ≥3%) and 11.1% as very low risk (5-year risk <0.33%).

          Conclusion

          The multifactorial BOADICEA model provides valid breast cancer risk predictions and a basis for personalised decision-making on disease prevention and screening.

          Related collections

          Most cited references52

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

          Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors.

          Multivariable regression models are powerful tools that are used frequently in studies of clinical outcomes. These models can use a mixture of categorical and continuous variables and can handle partially observed (censored) responses. However, uncritical application of modelling techniques can result in models that poorly fit the dataset at hand, or, even more likely, inaccurately predict outcomes on new subjects. One must know how to measure qualities of a model's fit in order to avoid poorly fitted or overfitted models. Measurement of predictive accuracy can be difficult for survival time data in the presence of censoring. We discuss an easily interpretable index of predictive discrimination as well as methods for assessing calibration of predicted survival probabilities. Both types of predictive accuracy should be unbiasedly validated using bootstrapping or cross-validation, before using predictions in a new data series. We discuss some of the hazards of poorly fitted and overfitted regression models and present one modelling strategy that avoids many of the problems discussed. The methods described are applicable to all regression models, but are particularly needed for binary, ordinal, and time-to-event outcomes. Methods are illustrated with a survival analysis in prostate cancer using Cox regression.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The personal and clinical utility of polygenic risk scores

            Initial expectations for genome-wide association studies were high, as such studies promised to rapidly transform personalized medicine with individualized disease risk predictions, prevention strategies and treatments. Early findings, however, revealed a more complex genetic architecture than was anticipated for most common diseases - complexity that seemed to limit the immediate utility of these findings. As a result, the practice of utilizing the DNA of an individual to predict disease has been judged to provide little to no useful information. Nevertheless, recent efforts have begun to demonstrate the utility of polygenic risk profiling to identify groups of individuals who could benefit from the knowledge of their probabilistic susceptibility to disease. In this context, we review the evidence supporting the personal and clinical utility of polygenic risk profiling.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Whole-genome landscapes of major melanoma subtypes

              The first large, high-coverage whole-genome sequencing study of melanomas from cutaneous, acral and mucosal sites.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Med Genet
                J Med Genet
                jmedgenet
                jmg
                Journal of Medical Genetics
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                0022-2593
                1468-6244
                December 2022
                26 September 2022
                : 59
                : 12
                : 1196-1205
                Affiliations
                [1 ] departmentCentre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care , University of Cambridge, Strangeways Research Laboratory , Cambridge, UK
                [2 ] departmentDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics , Karolinska Institutet , Stockholm, Sweden
                [3 ] departmentDepartment of Molecular Medicine , Université Laval and CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center , Quebec City, Quebec, Canada
                [4 ] departmentDepartment of Clinical Genetics , Leiden University Medical Center , Leiden, The Netherlands
                [5 ] departmentDevision of Molecular Pathology , The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital , Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                [6 ] departmentCentre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Oncology , University of Cambridge , Cambridge, UK
                [7 ] departmentDepartment of Oncology , Södersjukhuset , Stockholm, Sweden
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Professor Antonis C Antoniou, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Strangeways Research Laboratory, Cambridge CB1 8RN, Cambridgeshire, UK; aca20@ 123456medschl.cam.ac.uk
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0037-3790
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0677-0252
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9223-3116
                Article
                jmg-2022-108806
                10.1136/jmg-2022-108806
                9691822
                36162852
                f20913c6-088c-4753-a143-e768df51e2b9
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See:  https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 05 July 2022
                : 24 August 2022
                Funding
                Funded by: CHU de Quebec;
                Funded by: NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre;
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000024, Canadian Institutes of Health Research;
                Award ID: 155865
                Funded by: Quebec Breast Cancer Foundation;
                Funded by: Ontario Research Fund;
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000289, Cancer Research UK;
                Award ID: C12292/A20861
                Award ID: PPRPGM-Nov20\100002
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000023, Government of Canada;
                Award ID: 13529
                Funded by: the Märit and Hans Rausing’s Initiative Against Breast Cancer;
                Funded by: European Union;
                Award ID: 633784
                Award ID: 634935
                Categories
                Cancer Genetics
                1506
                Original research
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Genetics
                genetic counseling,public health,women's health
                Genetics
                genetic counseling, public health, women's health

                Comments

                Comment on this article