Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Medical Genetics logoLink to Journal of Medical Genetics
. 2003 Nov;40(11):807–814. doi: 10.1136/jmg.40.11.807

Evaluation of breast cancer risk assessment packages in the family history evaluation and screening programme

E Amir 1, D Evans 1, A Shenton 1, F Lalloo 1, A Moran 1, C Boggis 1, M Wilson 1, A Howell 1
PMCID: PMC1735317  PMID: 14627668

Abstract

Introduction: Accurate individualised breast cancer risk assessment is essential to provide risk–benefit analysis prior to initiating interventions designed to lower breast cancer risk. Several mathematical models for the estimation of individual breast cancer risk have been proposed. However, no single model integrates family history, hormonal factors, and benign breast disease in a comprehensive fashion. A new model by Tyrer and Cuzick has addressed these deficiencies. Therefore, this study has assessed the goodness of fit and discriminatory value of the Tyrer–Cuzick model against established models namely Gail, Claus, and Ford.

Methods: The goodness of fit and discriminatory accuracy of the models was assessed using data from 1933 women attending the Family History Evaluation and Screening Programme, of whom 52 developed cancer. All models were applied to these women over a mean follow up of 5.27 years to estimate risk of breast cancer.

Results: The ratios (95% confidence intervals) of expected to observed numbers of breast cancers were 0.48 (0.37 to 0.64) for Gail, 0.56 (0.43 to 0.75) for Claus, 0.49 (0.37 to 0.65) for Ford, and 0.81 (0.62 to 1.08) for Tyrer–Cuzick. The accuracy of the models for individual cases was evaluated using ROC curves. These showed that the area under the curve was 0.735 for Gail, 0.716 for Claus, 0.737 for Ford, and 0.762 for Tyrer–Cuzick.

Conclusion: The Tyrer–Cuzick model is the most consistently accurate model for prediction of breast cancer. The Gail, Claus, and Ford models all significantly underestimate risk, although the accuracy of the Claus model may be improved by adjustments for other risk factors.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (317.8 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Claus E. B., Risch N., Thompson W. D. Autosomal dominant inheritance of early-onset breast cancer. Implications for risk prediction. Cancer. 1994 Feb 1;73(3):643–651. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19940201)73:3<643::aid-cncr2820730323>3.0.co;2-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Costantino J. P., Gail M. H., Pee D., Anderson S., Redmond C. K., Benichou J., Wieand H. S. Validation studies for models projecting the risk of invasive and total breast cancer incidence. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999 Sep 15;91(18):1541–1548. doi: 10.1093/jnci/91.18.1541. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Cuzick J., Forbes J., Edwards R., Baum M., Cawthorn S., Coates A., Hamed A., Howell A., Powles T., IBIS investigators First results from the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study (IBIS-I): a randomised prevention trial. Lancet. 2002 Sep 14;360(9336):817–824. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(02)09962-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Euhus D. M. Understanding mathematical models for breast cancer risk assessment and counseling. Breast J. 2001 Jul-Aug;7(4):224–232. doi: 10.1046/j.1524-4741.2001.20012.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Euhus David M., Leitch A. Marilyn, Huth James F., Peters George N. Limitations of the Gail model in the specialized breast cancer risk assessment clinic. Breast J. 2002 Jan-Feb;8(1):23–27. doi: 10.1046/j.1524-4741.2002.08005.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Evans D. G. R., Lalloo F. Risk assessment and management of high risk familial breast cancer. J Med Genet. 2002 Dec;39(12):865–871. doi: 10.1136/jmg.39.12.865. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Evans D. G., Fentiman I. S., McPherson K., Asbury D., Ponder B. A., Howell A. Familial breast cancer. BMJ. 1994 Jan 15;308(6922):183–187. doi: 10.1136/bmj.308.6922.183. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Ford D., Easton D. F., Bishop D. T., Narod S. A., Goldgar D. E. Risks of cancer in BRCA1-mutation carriers. Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium. Lancet. 1994 Mar 19;343(8899):692–695. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(94)91578-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Ford D., Easton D. F., Stratton M., Narod S., Goldgar D., Devilee P., Bishop D. T., Weber B., Lenoir G., Chang-Claude J. Genetic heterogeneity and penetrance analysis of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in breast cancer families. The Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium. Am J Hum Genet. 1998 Mar;62(3):676–689. doi: 10.1086/301749. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Gail M. H., Brinton L. A., Byar D. P., Corle D. K., Green S. B., Schairer C., Mulvihill J. J. Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1989 Dec 20;81(24):1879–1886. doi: 10.1093/jnci/81.24.1879. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Gail M. H., Costantino J. P., Bryant J., Croyle R., Freedman L., Helzlsouer K., Vogel V. Weighing the risks and benefits of tamoxifen treatment for preventing breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999 Nov 3;91(21):1829–1846. doi: 10.1093/jnci/91.21.1829. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Hanley J. A., McNeil B. J. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology. 1982 Apr;143(1):29–36. doi: 10.1148/radiology.143.1.7063747. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Harrell F. E., Jr, Lee K. L., Pollock B. G. Regression models in clinical studies: determining relationships between predictors and response. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1988 Oct 5;80(15):1198–1202. doi: 10.1093/jnci/80.15.1198. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Jernström H., Lerman C., Ghadirian P., Lynch H. T., Weber B., Garber J., Daly M., Olopade O. I., Foulkes W. D., Warner E. Pregnancy and risk of early breast cancer in carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2. Lancet. 1999 Nov 27;354(9193):1846–1850. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(99)04336-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. McTiernan A., Kuniyuki A., Yasui Y., Bowen D., Burke W., Culver J. B., Anderson R., Durfy S. Comparisons of two breast cancer risk estimates in women with a family history of breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2001 Apr;10(4):333–338. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Rockhill B., Spiegelman D., Byrne C., Hunter D. J., Colditz G. A. Validation of the Gail et al. model of breast cancer risk prediction and implications for chemoprevention. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001 Mar 7;93(5):358–366. doi: 10.1093/jnci/93.5.358. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Tischkowitz M., Wheeler D., France E., Chapman C., Lucassen A., Sampson J., Harper P., Krawczak M., Gray J. A comparison of methods currently used in clinical practice to estimate familial breast cancer risks. Ann Oncol. 2000 Apr;11(4):451–454. doi: 10.1023/a:1008396129543. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Medical Genetics are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES