Skip to main content
Journal of Primary Care & Community Health logoLink to Journal of Primary Care & Community Health
. 2017 Mar 18;8(3):180–187. doi: 10.1177/2150131917696941

Assessing Breast Cancer Risk Estimates Based on the Gail Model and Its Predictors in Qatari Women

Abdulbari Bener 1,2,3,, Funda Çatan 1,4, Hanadi R El Ayoubi 5,6, Ahmet Acar 1, Wanis H Ibrahim 7
PMCID: PMC5932695  PMID: 28606030

Abstract

Background: The Gail model is the most widely used breast cancer risk assessment tool. An accurate assessment of individual’s breast cancer risk is very important for prevention of the disease and for the health care providers to make decision on taking chemoprevention for high-risk women in clinical practice in Qatar. Aim: To assess the breast cancer risk among Arab women population in Qatar using the Gail model and provide a global comparison of risk assessment. Subjects and Methods: In this cross-sectional study of 1488 women (aged 35 years and older), we used the Gail Risk Assessment Tool to assess the risk of developing breast cancer. Sociodemographic features such as age, lifestyle habits, body mass index, breast-feeding duration, consanguinity among parents, and family history of breast cancer were considered as possible risks. Results: The mean age of the study population was 47.8 ± 10.8 years. Qatari women and Arab women constituted 64.7% and 35.3% of the study population, respectively. The mean 5-year and lifetime breast cancer risks were 1.12 ± 0.52 and 10.57 ± 3.1, respectively. Consanguineous marriage among parents was seen in 30.6% of participants. We found a relationship between the 5-year and lifetime risks of breast cancer and variables such as age, age at menarche, gravidity, parity, body mass index, family history of cancer, menopause age, occupation, and level of education. The linear regression analysis identified the predictors for breast cancer in women such as age, age at menarche, age of first birth, family history and age of menopausal were considered the strong predictors and significant contributing risk factors for breast cancer after adjusting for ethnicity, parity and other variables. Conclusion: The current study is the first to evaluate the performance of the Gail model for Arab women population in the Gulf Cooperation Council. Gail model is an appropriate breast cancer risk assessment tool for female population in Qatar.

Keywords: breast cancer, Gail model risk assessment, lifestyle, predictor, risk factors, consanguinity, Arab women

Introduction

Breast cancer is a major public health concern worldwide. It is the most prevalent cancer accounting for nearly 30% of all cancer types in women in both developed and developing countries.1 The World Health Organization (WHO) estimated more than 536 521 deaths from breast cancer in 2012 worldwide.2,3 Each year, nearly 1.7 million women are diagnosed with breast cancer and 522 000 die from the disease.2 Furthermore, it has been estimated that almost 53% of the diagnosed breast cancer cases and 62% of breast cancer–related deaths occur in less developed regions.2 This high mortality rate can be attributed to the late diagnosis of the disease.2 Hence, early diagnosis of breast cancer is of paramount importance to reduce such mortality rates and the burden of breast cancer. Qatar is one of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries with a total population of 2 258 283 (July 2016 estimate). In Qatar, breast cancer constitutes about 39% of all cancer types in females (Qatar Cancer Society website). Qatari nationals account for 32% of all breast cancer cases in Qatar (age 40-50 years).4-6

Breast cancer screening is an efficient approach for early diagnosis and prevention of breast cancer in “high-risk” women.7-11 Among the widely available risk assessment models for breast cancer, Gail model remains the most frequently used tool for prediction of the 5-year and lifetime risks of developing breast cancer for women aged 35 years and older.12-15 It uses 6 breast cancer risk factors, including age, hormonal or reproductive history (age at menarche and age at first live birth), previous history of breast disease (number of breast biopsies and history of atypical hyperplasia), and family history (number of first-degree relatives with breast cancer).

The Gail model12 is the most widely used breast cancer risk assessment tool. An accurate assessment of individual’s breast cancer risk is very important for prevention of the disease and for the health care providers to make decision on taking chemoprevention for high-risk women in clinical practice. One of the advantages of the Gail model12 is the extensive validation it underwent in different female populations since its development over the past 2 decades. Despite being validated in different Western populations, Gail model validation in Arabian Gulf women has not been performed previously. The aim of this study was to assess the breast cancer risk among Arab women population in Qatar using the Gail model and provide a global comparison of risk assessment.

Subjects and Methods

This is a cross-sectional study conducted at tertiary and primary health care facilities in Qatar. Data collection took place from July 2012 to June 2014, inclusive. Among the 22 primary health care centers available in Qatar, 12 were randomly selected (10 located in urban and 2 in semiurban areas). A 1-in-2 systematic sample was performed. A representative sample of 1993 women aged 35 years and older was selected. Among the 1993 invited, 1488 (74.6%) subjects gave consent to take part in this study. Each participant was informed about the study and guaranteed promises of confidentiality. The trained nurses and research assistances coordinated the face-to-face interviews with women to complete questionnaires in the Arabic language. The pilot survey instruments were initially tested for validation on 100 women. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients values >.70 indicates adequate scale reliability. Overall internal reliability (Cronbach’s α = .85) was high. A structured questionnaire was used to collect sociodemographic data and details of risk factors for breast cancer such as age, age at first period, age at the first live birth, the number of previous breast biopsies, the presence of atypical hyperplasia in any previous breast biopsy specimen and history of breast cancer among the participant’s first-degree relatives (mother, sisters, and daughters). The study was approved by the Research Ethical Committee of Hamad Medical Corporation and conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. All participants signed consent form prior to inclusion in the study.

Student’s t test was used to check significant differences between mean values of 2 continuous groups. Moreover, differences in proportions of categorical variables between 2 or more groups were ascertained by chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests. Multiple linear regression models with stepwise method were used to estimate the effect of each variable on the 5-year and lifetime breast cancer risk. The level P < .05 was considered as the cutoff value for significance. The Gail model risk for each subject was calculated by Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRAT) (an interactive tool designed for estimating the women’s risk of developing invasive breast cancer).12,16-18

The Gail model calculates the probability of a woman at age a who has age-related relative risk r(t). This will develop breast cancer by age a+τ.

p{a,τ,r(t)}=aa+τh1(t)r(t)eaτh1(u)r(u)du{S2(t)/S2(a)}dt

where S2(t)=e0th2(u)du. It is the probability of surviving competing risk up to age. In this equation, h1(t) denotes the age-related risk of a subject from unknown risk factors and h2(t) refers to the age-related risk of causes of death.12

BCRAT calculated 4 types of risk, including 5-year risk, lifetime risk, average 5-year risk, and lifetime risk for each women of same age. To stratify women into high-risk category is one of the main purposes of using breast cancer risk tools. Accordingly, health care provider can provide better screening decision or clinical management strategies for individual patient.17 Using the Gail model, as a golden standard, a woman with a probability of getting breast cancer of less than 1.66% in 5 years is considered being at low risk. Conversely, a woman with a probability of more than 1.66% is classified as high-risk and should undergo intensive screening by annual mammography and clinical breast examination every 6 to 12 months.19

Inclusion Criteria

Women of Qatar and Arab nationals aged 35 years or older were included in the current study. Subjects with prior history of breast cancer and mentally-incapacitated patients were excluded from the study.

Results

Table 1 shows the sociodemographic characteristics of all reported women (N = 1488). The mean age of the women in the study was 47.7 ± 10.2 years. Qatari nationals constituted 64.7% of participants whereas 35.3% were Arab expatriates. Around 86 % of participants were married women, 14.6% were illiterate, 23.9% were university graduates, and 53% were housewives. The age of menarche for the majority of participants (57.6%) was between 12 and 13 years. Majority of participants (60.6%) were postmenopausal women. Interestingly, sheesha smoking habit was more popular in Arab women (9.7%) than cigarette smoking (4.8%).

Table 1.

Sociodemographic Characteristics of Breast Cancer Patients (N = 1488).

Characteristic n %
Age, years, mean ± SD (range) 47.8 ± 10.8 (35-65)
Age group, years
 35-45 468 31.5
 46-55 528 37.5
 56-65 462 31.0
Ethnicity
 Qatari 963 64.7
 Other Arabs 526 35.3
Age at menarche, years
 9-11 274 18.4
 12-13 857 57.6
 ≥14 357 24.0
Menopausal
 Premenopausal (nonmenopause) 586 39.4
 Postmenopausal (menopause) 902 60.6
Marital status
 Single 67 13.9
 Married 1329 86.1
 Widowes/divorced 92 6.1
Education level
 Illiterate 211 14.2
 Primary 282 19.0
 Intermediate 256 17.2
 Secondary 384 25.8
 University or higher 355 23.9
Occupation
 Housewife 789 53.0
 Sedentary/Professional 298 20.0
 Clerk/Officer/Administrator 235 15.8
 Businesswoman 86 5.8
 Police/Army/Security force 80 5.4
Household income
 Low 504 33.9
 Medium 624 41.9
 High 360 24.2
Smoking
 Yes 72 4.8
 No 1416 95.2
Sheesha smoking
 Yes 144 9.7
 No 1344 90.3

Table 2 presents the lifestyle and clinical characteristics of the study population. Daily physical activity was less practiced among participants during hot seasons, only 27.5% walked 30 minutes per day and 12% walked 60 minutes per day. Around 43% of women were overweight and 30% were obese. Majority of women had one child. Consanguineous marriage among parents was observed in 30.6% of the studied women. Most of the women in this study (67.7%) breast-fed their children more than 6 months.

Table 2.

Lifestyle and Clinical Characteristics of Study Sample (N = 1488).

Variables Frequency and Percentage, n (%)
Physical activity, walking per day
 30 minutes 409 (27.5)
 60 minutes 178(12.0)
 None 901 (60.5)
Body mass index group, kg/m2
 20-24.99 (normal) 405 (27.2)
 25-30 (overweight) 637 (42.8)
 >30 (obese) 446 (30.0)
Infertility
 Yes 106 (7.1)
 No 1382 (92.9)
Parity
 None 121 (8.1)
 1 child 422 (28.4)
 2-3 children 353 (23.7)
 4-5 children 311 (20.9)
 >6 children 281 (18.9)
Breast-feeding
 Yes 1220 (82.0)
 No 268 (18.0)
Breast-feeding duration
 ≤6 months 376 (25.3)
 >6 months 1006 (67.7)
None 106 (7.1)
Consanguineous parents
 Yes 456 (30.6)
 No 1032 (69.4)
First-degree family cancer history
 Yes 203 (13.6)
 No 1285 (86.4)
Family cancer history more than 1
 Yes 90 (6)
 No 1398 (94)
Mammography screening
 Yes 107 (8)
 No 1231 (92.0)

Table 3 shows the sociodemographic characteristics of women with breast cancer risk using Gail model for 5-year and lifetime risk of breast cancer. The women who had a medical history of breast cancer and mutation of BRAC1 or BRAC2 genes were excluded and there were 1338 women remaining. The mean 5-year and lifetime risks for breast cancer were 1.12 ± 0.52 and 10.57 ± 3.1, respectively. The mean 5-year and lifetime risks for women of the same age were 1.15 ± 0.46 and 11.04 ± 1.21, respectively. The 5-year and lifetime risks were considered as low if they were lower than their mean value. Similarly, the 5-year and lifetime risks were considered as high if they were higher than their mean value. We found a relationship between the 5-year and lifetime risks of breast cancer and variables such as age, age at menarche, gravidity, parity, body mass index (BMI), family history of cancer, menopause age, occupation, and level of education.

Table 3.

Sociodemographic Characteristics of Patients With Breast Cancer Risk Using the Gail Model (N = 1338).

5-Year Risk
Lifetime Risk
Low Risk, n (%) High Risk, n (%) P Low Risk, n (%) High Risk, n (%) P
Age group, years
 35-45 445 (60.0) 22 (3.7) 160 (21.8) 307 (50.9)
 46-55 257 (34.6) 278 (46.6) <.001 310 (42.2) 225 (37.3) <.001
 56-65 40 (5.4) 296 (49.7) 265 (36) 71 (11.8)
Ethnicity
 Qatari 515 (69.4) 419 (70.3) .723 519 (70.6) 415 (68.8) .478
 Other Arabs 227 (30.6) 177 (29.7) 216 (29.4) 188 (31.2)
Age at Menarche, years
 9-11 112 (15.1) 115 (19.3) 105 (14.3) 122 (20.2)
 12-13 437 (58.9) 346 (58.1) .082 405 (55.1) 378 (62.7) <.001
 ≥14 193 (26.0) 135 (22.7) 225 (30.6) 103 (17.1)
Age at first birth, years
 <20 94 (12.7) 5 (0.8) 94 (12.8) 5 (0.8)
 20-24 256 (34.5) 91 (15.3) <.001 299 (40.7) 48 (8.0) <.001
 25-29 223 (30.1) 196 (32.9) 258 (35.1) 161 (26.7)
 ≥30 169 (22.8) 304 (64.3) 84 (11.4) 389 (29.1)
Family history
 Yes 35 (4.7) 115 (19.3) <.001 8 (1.1) 142 (23.5) <.001
 No 707 (95.3) 481 (80.7) 727 (98.9) 461 (76.5)
Menopausal
 Premenopausal 484 (65.2) 37 (6.2) <.001 194 (26.4) 327 (54.2) <.001
 Postmenopausal 258 (34.8) 559 (93.8) 541 (73.6) 276 (45.8)
Breast-feeding
 <6 months 150 (20.2) 110 (18.5) .419 151 (20.5) 109 (18.1) .256
 ≥6 months 592 (79.8) 486 (81.5) 584 (79.5) 494 (81.9)
Consanguinity
 Yes 225 (30.3) 181 (30.4) .986 214 (29.1) 192 (31.8) .281
 No 517 (69.7) 415 (69.6) 521 (70.1) 411 (68.2)
Parity
 ≤3 children 570 (76.8) 429 (72.0) .043 540 (73.5) 459 (76.1) .267
 >3 children 172 (23.2) 167 (28.0) 195 (26.5) 144 (23.9)
Body mass index, kg/m2
 20-24.99 222 (29.9) 138 (23.2) 191 (26.0) 169 (28.0)
 25-30 277 (37.3) 304 (51.0) <.001 332 (45.2) 249 (41.3) .361
 >30 243 (32.7) 154 (25.8) 212 (28.8) 185 (30.7)
Breast biopsies
 Yes 4 (0.5) 8 (1.3) 5 (0.7) 7 (1.2)
 No 738 (99.5) 588 (98.7) .149 730 (99.3) 596 (98.8) .394
Sheesha smoking
 Yes 76 (10.2) 60 (10.1) .916 66 (9.0) 70 (11.6) .113
Occupation
 Housewife 362 (48.8) 341 (57.2) 380 (51.7) 323 (53.6)
 Sedentary/Professional 206 (27.8) 63 (10.6) <.001 129 (17.6) 140 (23.2) .001
 Clerk/Administrator 137 (18.5) 149 (25) 182 (24.8) 104 (17.2)
 Businesswoman 37 (5.0) 43 (7.2) 44 (6.0) 36 (6.0)
Education level
 Illiterate 71 (9.6) 118 (19.8) 117 (15.9) 72 (11.9)
 Primary 132 (17.8) 126 (21.1) 133 (18.1) 125 (20.7)
 Intermediate 105 (14.2) 127 (21.3) <.001 135 (18.4) 97 (16.1) .019
 Secondary 202 (27.2) 140 (23.5) 196 (26.7) 146 (24.2)
 University or higher 232 (31.3) 85 (14.3) 154 (21.0) 163 (27.0)

Table 4 shows the general linear regression model analysis as predictors for 5-year and lifetime risks of developing breast cancer in women 35 years and older in the state of Qatar. The linear regression analysis identified the predictors for breast cancer in women for 5-year and lifetime risks such as age, age at menarche, age of first birth, family history, and age of menopause were considered the strong predictors and significant contributing risk factors for breast cancer after adjusting for ethnicity, parity, and other variables (P < .001). Meanwhile the model and analysis did not have significant affect for breast-feeding, consanguinity, BMI, sheesha smoking, smoking, occupation, and education level; however, did not enter into the model as predictors.

Table 4.

Regression Results for 5-Year and Lifetime Gail Risk.

Independent Variables Coefficient Standard Error t P
5-year risks
 Constant −0.519 0.063 −8.222 <.001
 Age 0.055 0.001 50.735 <.001
 Age at menarche −0.039 0.003 −13.036 <.001
 Age of first birth 0.034 0.001 37.682 <.001
 Family history −0.734 0.014 −51.293 <.001
 Menopause 0.062 0.018 3.499 <.001
Lifetime risks
 Constant 25.055 0.430 58.229 <.001
 Age −0.161 0.007 −21.622 <.001
 Age at menarche −0.322 0.021 −15.692 <.001
 Age of first birth 0.315 0.006 51.732 <.001
 Family history −6.087 0.097 −62.432 <.001
 Menopause −0.221 0.121 −1.831 .067

Globally reported Gail’s breast cancer risks are presented in Table 5. The Gail model overestimates risk in most of the studies apart from the United States, because the risk factors and incidence rates of breast cancer are varied across different ethnicities.

Table 5.

Reported Gail’s Breast Cancer Risk: Global Variations and Comparisons.

Study Year Country Sample Size (n) Study Design Type Age (Years) 5-Year Breast Cancer Risk Lifetime Breast Cancer Risk
Gail et al12 1989 USA 4496 Case-control >50 1.02 11.21
Ulusoy et al9 2010 Turkey 650 Cross-sectional >35 1.67 7.70
Khazaee-Pool et al14 2016 Iran 3847 Cross-sectional >35 1.61 11.71
Erbil et al20 2015 Turkey 231 Cross-sectional >35 0.88 9.37
Seyednoori et al13 2012 Iran 314 Cross-sectional >35 0.80 9.0
Yilmaz et al10 2011 Turkey 415 Cross-sectional >20 1.70 15.0
Khaliq et al11 2016 USA 124 Cross-sectional >50 1.67
Eadie et al16 2013 UK 355 Cross-sectional >46 1.50 9.0
Tice et al21 2005 USA 8,388 Cross-sectional >18 0.80 8.0
Baitchev et al8 2009 Bulgaria 315 Retrospective >35 1.51
Challa et al22 2013 India 200 Case-control >35 7.80
Mirgahfourvand et al23 2016 Iran 560 Cross-sectional >35 0.60 8.90
Abu Rustum et al7 2001 USA 319 Prospective >35 1.67
Park et al24 2013 Korea 3789 Cohort <50 0.44 2.24
Davids et al25 2004 USA 254 Cross-sectional >40 1.50 8.40
Ewaid and Al-Azzawi15 2016 Iraq 250 Cross-sectional >35 0.95 11.30
Novotny et al26 2006 Czech Republic 4598 Case-control >35 1.37 8.02
Adams-Campbell et al27 2009 USA 883 Retrospective >40 0.88
Panahi et al28 2008 Iran 2000 Cross-sectional >35 0.92 9.14
Palomares et al29 2006 USA 99 Prospective >35 4.13 23.50
Bener et al (present study) 2016 Qatar 1488 Cross-sectional >35 1.12 10.57

Discussion

Breast cancer in Qatar is the most common form of cancer in Qatari Arab women and the most frequent cause of cancer-related death.4,5,30 Hence, an accurate assessment of individual’s breast cancer risk is of paramount importance to patients as well as health care providers to make decision on taking chemoprevention for high-risk women. It is important to know that the women at high risk of developing breast cancer need valuable supports for making a decision in health care and accepting the effect of different prevention policies.

Various mathematical models are widely available to estimate individual breast cancer risk. For the past 2 decades, the Gail model has been considered to be the best available means for estimating risk of development of breast cancer.12,17,18 It is also the most frequently used model in chemoprevention trials and counseling. The original model was derived from general American white women with annual mammography screening12,17 and hence, it can be suitable for populations such as in the current study and other similar studies.13-15,20 Nevertheless, one of the important limitations of Gail model is the lack of consideration of breast cancer among second degree-relatives as a risk factor. Furthermore, a number of previous studies have shown that the Gail model may overestimate the risk of development of breast cancer.7,21,27 The Claus model (1998) on the other hand, focuses on presence of first- and second-degree relatives with breast cancer and their age at diagnosis as important risk factors. Unlike the Gail and Claus models,32 the BRCAPRO model uses Mendelian approaches and Bayesian statistics and takes into consideration family history of bilateral breast cancer and ovarian cancer. The Tyrer-Cuzick model33 (IBIS model) assesses 10-year risk and presents a non-BRCA1/BRCA2 breast cancer susceptibility gene mutation for individuals. However, the limitation of this model is to collect unaffected relatives and type of benign disease.

The Gail model has not been validated in female population of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. To the best of our knowledge, the current study is the first to evaluate the performance of the Gail model for Arab women population in the GCC. Furthermore, we studied the effects of factors that were not included in the Gail model such as consanguinity, BMI, menopausal and postmenopausal status, duration of breast-feeding on the risk of developing breast cancer. In agreement with other studies,5,31,34,35 the current study revealed that the general risk of breast cancer was high in single women, women with a positive family history of breast cancer, and women who did not breast-feed their children. The risk was higher with lower menarche ages, higher level of education and higher women’s age at first childbirth. We also found that certain factors could lower the risk of breast cancer such as multiparity, breast-feeding history, and absence of family history of breast cancer.

Our study has a number of limitations. The cross-sectional nature of the study does not allow future assessment and update regarding changes in the various risk factors among the participants. Moreover, bias may affect the results due to self-reported data; however, this study was based on face-to-face interviews and randomly we checked 50% of women’s medical records for accuracy. Furthermore, we did not examine the genetic susceptibilities of the study population as well as the association between history of other malignancies (such as ovarian cancer) and the risk of development of breast cancer.

Conclusion

Breast cancer is an important health problem in Qatar and estimating risk of development of breast cancer in Qatari and Arab nationals is very important for screening and prevention of the disease. The current study highlights the usefulness of Gail model as important breast cancer risk prediction model for clinical decision making. The Gail model is an appropriate breast cancer risk assessment tool for Qatari’s female population. The breast cancer risk assessment can be helpful in the clinical management of screening and prevention.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Hamad Medical Corporation for their support and ethical approval (HMC RC#8222/08, RP # 12215/12, and HMC RP # 12061/12).

Author Biographies

Abdulbari Bener currently is professor of Public Health at the Cerrahpaşa Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul University and Medipol University - International School of Medicine. He was professor of Public Health in the Department of Public Health at the Weill Cornell Medical College, and Asst. Medical director and head of the Medical Statistics & Epidemiology Department at Hamad Medical Corporation, Qatar, during August 2002–July 2014. In addition, he is also advisor to World Health Organization and Adjunct Professor & Coordinator for the postgraduate and master public health programs (MPH) of the School of Epidemiology and Health Sciences, University of Manchester.

Funda Çatan, research assistant, graduated from University of Leicester in UK with a MSc and MPhil degree from University of Nottingham in UK and pursuing a PhD in Istanbul University, Cerrahpasa Medicine Faculty, Turkey.

Hanadi R. El Ayoubi, MD, Head Oncology & Hematology, Ex-Medical director Al Amal Cancer Hospital, Hamad Medical Corporation, Qatar and currently working Hematologist at the Department clinical hematologyand stem cell transplantation, Hospital Saint Louis - Porte 5,1, Avenue Claude Vellefaux, 75475 Paris 10, France.

Ahmet Acar MD, physician, currently pursuing MSc at the Cerrahpaşa Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul University, Turkey and visiting scholar Harvard University, Medical School, USA.

Wanis H. Ibrahim, MD, senior consultant at the Department Clinical Medicine & Pulmonology, Hamad General Hospital, and associate professor at the Weill-Cornell Medical College, Qatar.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding: The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported and funded by the Hamad Medical Corporation.

References

  • 1. World Health Organization. The Global Burden of Disease. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2014. http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/. Accessed November 25, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 2. World Health Organization. Breast Cancer: Prevention and Control. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2014. http://www.who.int/cancer/detection/breastcancer/en/index.html. Accessed December 13, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Globocan. Cancer fact sheet. Breast cancer incidence and mortality worldwide in 2012. http://globocan.iarc.fr/old/FactSheets/cancers/breast-new.asp. Accessed December 13, 2016.
  • 4. Bener A, El Ayoubi H, Kakil R, Ibrahim W. Patterns of cancer incidence among the population of Qatar: a worldwide comparative study. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2007;9:19-24. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Bener A, El Ayoubi HR, Ali AI, Al-Kubaisi A, Al-Sulaiti H. Does consanguinity lead to decreased incidence of breast cancer? Cancer Epidemiol. 2010;34:413-418. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Bener A, Zirie M, Kim EJ, et al. Measuring burden of diseases in a rapidly developing economy: state of Qatar. Glob J Health Sci. 2013;5:134-144. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Abu-Rustum NR, Herbolsheimer H. Breast cancer risk assessment in indigent women at a public hospital. Gynecol Oncol. 2001;81:287-290. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Baitchev G, Christova P, Ivanov I. Is the Gail model for breast cancer risk assessment valid for the Bulgarian women? Khirurgiia. 2009;6:27-30. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Ulusoy C, Kepenekci I, Kose K, Aydintug S, Cam R. 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. 2010;120:419-424. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Yilmaz M, Guler G, Bekar M, Guler N. Risk of breast cancer, health beliefs and screening behaviour among Turkish academic women and housewives. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2011;12:817-822. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Khaliq W, Jelovac D, Wright SM. Prevalence of chemopreventive agent use among hospitalised women at high risk for breast cancer: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2016;6:e012550. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Gail MH, Brinton LA, Byar DP, et al. Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1989;81:1879-1886. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Seyednoori T, Pakseresht S, Roushan Z. Risk of developing breast cancer by utilizing Gail model. Women Health. 2012;52:391-402. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Khazaee-Pool M, Majlessi F, Nedjat S, Montazeri A, Janani L, Pashaei T. Assessing breast cancer risk among Iranian women using the Gail model. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2016;17:3759-3762. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Ewaid SH, Al-Azzawi LHA. Breast cancer risk assessment by Gail model in women of Baghdad [published online September 22, 2016]. Alexandria J Med. doi: 10.1016/j.ajme.2016.09.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Eadie L, Enfield L, Taylor P, Michell M, Gibson A. Breast cancer risk scores in a standard screening population. Breast Cancer Manag. 2013;6:463-479. [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Gail MH, Costantino JP, Pee D, et al. Projecting individualized absolute invasive breast cancer risk in African American women. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99:1782-1792. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Costantino JP, Gail MH, Pee D, et al. Validation studies for models projecting the risk of invasive and total breast cancer incidence. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999;91:1541-1548. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. National Cancer Institute. Breast cancer risk assessment tool. 2013. http://www.cancer.gov/bcrisktool/Default.aspx. Accessed November 26, 2016.
  • 20. Erbil N, Dundar N, Inan C, Bolukbas N. Breast cancer risk assessment using the Gail model: a Turkish study. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2015;16:303-306. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Tice JA, Cummings SR, Ziv E, Kerlikowske K. Mammographic breast density and the Gail model for breast cancer risk prediction in a screening population. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2005;94:115-122. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Challa VR, Swamyvelu K, Shetty N. Assessment of the clinical utility of the Gail model in estimating the risk of breast cancer in women from the Indian population. Ecancermedicalscience. 2013;7:363. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Mirghafourvand M, Mohammad-Alizadeh-Charandabi S, Ahmadpour P, Rahi P. Breast cancer risk based on the Gail model and its predictors in Iranian women. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2016;17:3741-3745. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Park B, Ma SH, Shin A, et al. Korean risk assessment model for breast cancer risk prediction. PLoS One. 2013;8:e76736. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Davids SL, Schapira MM, McAuliffe TL, Nattinger AB. Predictors of pessimistic breast cancer risk perceptions in a primary care population. J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19:310-315. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Novotny J, Pecen L, Petruzelka L, et al. Breast cancer risk assessment in the Czech female population—an adjustment of the original Gail model. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2006;95:29-35. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Adams-Campbell LL, Makambi KH, Frederick WA, Gaskins M, DeWitty RL, McCaskill-Stevens W. Breast cancer risk assessments comparing Gail and CARE models in African-American women. Breast J. 2009;15(suppl 1):S72-S75. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Panahi G, Shabahang H, Sahebghalam H. Breast cancer risk assessment in Iranian women by Gail model. Med J Islam Republic Iran. 2008;22:37-39. [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Palomares MR1, Machia JR, Lehman CD, Daling JR, McTiernan A. Mammographic density correlation with Gail model breast cancer risk estimates and component risk factors. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006;15:1324-1330. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Andreeva VA, Pokhrel P. Breast cancer screening utilization among Eastern European immigrant women worldwide: a systematic literature review and a focus on psychosocial barriers. Psychooncology. 2013;22:2664-2675. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Bener A, El Ayoubi HR. The role of vitamin D deficiency and osteoporosis in breast cancer. Int J Rheum Dis. 2012;15:554-561. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Berry DA, Iversen ES, Jr, Gudbjartsson DF, et al. BRCAPRO validation, sensitivity of genetic testing of BRCA1/BRCA2, and prevalence of other breast cancer susceptibility genes. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:2701-2712. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Tyrer J, Duffy SW, Cuzick J. A breast cancer prediction model incorporating familial and personal risk factors. Stat Med. 2004;23:1111-1130. Erratum in: Stat Med 2005;24: 156. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Mohammadbeigi A, Mohammadsalehi N, Valizadeh R, Momtaheni Z, Mokhtari M, Ansari H. Lifetime and 5 years risk of breast cancer and attributable risk factor according to Gail model in Iranian women. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2015;7:207-211. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. McPherson K, Steel C, Dixon JM. Breast cancer—epidemiology, risk factors, and genetics. BMJ. 2000;321:624-628. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Primary Care & Community Health are provided here courtesy of SAGE Publications

RESOURCES