MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2655088374 · doi:10.1158/1538-7755.carisk16-pr07

Abstract PR07: Comparison of risk model recommendations for women at high-risk of breast cancer based on clinical thresholds using the Prospective Family Study Cohort (ProF-SC)

2017· article· en· W2655088374 sur OpenAlexaff
Mary Beth Terry, Kelly‐Anne Phillips, Yuyan Liao, Robert J. MacInnis, Gillian S. Dite, Mary B. Daly, Esther M. John, Irene L. Andrulis, Saundra S. Buys, Richard Buchsbaum, John L. Hopper

Notice bibliographique

RevueCancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention · 2017
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
ThématiqueBRCA gene mutations in cancer
Établissements canadiensLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésIbisBreast cancerMedicineRisk assessmentProspective cohort studyIncidence (geometry)Receiver operating characteristicCohortConfidence intervalCohort studyDemographyGynecologyCancerInternal medicineMathematicsComputer science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Clinical guidelines for classifying women as high-risk for breast cancer when considering chemoprevention and/or MRI screening options include thresholds of remaining lifetime risk (RLR) of 20% or more and/or a fixed time interval (e.g., 5-year risk of 1.67 or higher, 10-year risk of 3.34 or higher). Although clinicians have noted differences in risk estimates from the existing risk models, there have been few prospective validations using large cohorts to describe the magnitude of the discordancies between these models. Methods: We prospectively followed 16,285 women without breast cancer at baseline for an average of 10.2 years to compare the RLR and 10-year risk assigned by two commonly used risk estimation models for high risk women: 1) The International Breast Cancer Intervention Study tool (IBIS); and 2) the Breast Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA). We compared the model-assigned 10-year risks with subsequent incidence of breast cancer in the cohort. We used chi-square statistics to assess calibration and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) to assess discrimination. Results: We observed differences between risk models in terms of the proportion of women classified as high-risk based on 20% or more RLR (IBIS=56% vs BOADICEA=23%). Only 21% of women were classified as high risk by both models, 35% of women were classified as high risk by IBIS only and 2% of women were classified as high risk by BOADICEA only. The difference was not evident (IBIS=52% vs BOADICEA=51%) when using a 10-year risk threshold of 3.34%. Using this 10-year threshold, 43% of women were classified as high risk by both models, 9% of women were classified as high risk by IBIS only and 8% of women were classified as high risk by BOADICEA only. IBIS risk predictions (mean=4.9%) were better calibrated to observed breast cancer incidence (5.8%, 95% confidence interval (CI)=5.4% to 6.2%) than were those based on BOADICEA (mean=4.2%). When we compared the magnitude of the discordancy between IBIS and BOADICEA by age, race/ethnicity, and number of relatives affected, we observed the extent of discordancy (e.g. one model resulted in a woman being above the clinical threshold when the other did not) depended on age. Specifically, for women under the age of 40 years, only 3.1% of women were high risk with IBIS but not BOADICEA compared with 7.5% classified as high risk by BOADICEA but not IBIS. Both models gave similar predictions of high risk with same proportion discordant for women over 50, and the same proportion discordant by race/ethnicity. When we compared the discordancy by those unaffected and affected with breast cancer after ten years of follow-up, 51% of unaffected women were high risk by IBIS using the 10-year threshold and 50% by BOADICEA with only 8% discordant (high risk on only one model). For women who were diagnosed with breast cancer prospectively after baseline, 75% were classified as high risk at baseline by IBIS and 72% were classified by BOADICEA with 8% high risk by IBIS only and 5% high risk by BOADICEA only. Conclusion: These results suggest that there is a considerable discordancy between two commonly used risk models to determine high risk classification for MRI and chemoprevention. There is a greater concordancy between the two models when using a shorter time-horizon, especially for women over the age of 50 years. However, as MRI and chemoprevention for high-risk women often needs to start before the age of 50 years, there is a great need to enhance risk assessment for these younger high risk women. Citation Format: Mary Beth Terry, Kelly-Anne Phillips, Yuyan Liao, Robert J. MacInnis, Gillian S. Dite, Mary B. Daly, Esther M. John, Irene L. Andrulis, Saundra S. Buys, Richard Buchsbaum, John L. Hopper. Comparison of risk model recommendations for women at high-risk of breast cancer based on clinical thresholds using the Prospective Family Study Cohort (ProF-SC). [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference: Improving Cancer Risk Prediction for Prevention and Early Detection; Nov 16-19, 2016; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2017;26(5 Suppl):Abstract nr PR07.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,056
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,103
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,056
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,296

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0560,103
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,003
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0020,001
Science ouverte0,0020,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,124
Tête enseignante GPT0,468
Écart entre enseignants0,344 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2017
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & PreventionMême sujetBRCA gene mutations in cancerTravaux en français237 207