MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3083404349 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am2020-4623

Abstract 4623: External validation of the BOADICEA model for predicting ovarian cancer risk: The Breast Cancer Family Registry

2020· article· en· W3083404349 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer S. Ferris, Jeanine M. Genkinger, Mary Beth Terry, Yuyan Liao, Robert J. MacInnis, Irene L. Andrulis, Saundra S. Buys, Mary B. Daly, Esther M. John, John L. Hopper

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBRCA gene mutations in cancer
Canadian institutionsLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOvarian cancerBreast cancerMedicineCancer registryCohortCancerOncologyFamily historyProspective cohort studyGynecologyCohort studyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Purpose: In the U.S., ovarian cancer is the most fatal of the gynecological cancers with an overall five-year survival rate of 47.6%. While women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation are at a much higher risk of developing ovarian cancer, mutations in these genes account for less than 50 percent of the familial aggregation of ovarian cancer. Being able to identify women at greatest risk, including those with increased familial risk without a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation, is critical for clinical decision-making; however, there is a lack of risk prediction models for ovarian cancer and those that do exist have modest discriminatory power. Therefore, we externally validated the BOADICEA model, a breast and ovarian cancer risk prediction model based on a woman's multigenerational family history and genetic information, for predicting ovarian cancer risk in an independent, prospective cohort of women. Methods: We used data from the Breast Cancer Family Registry (BCFR), a cohort of families with breast and ovarian cancer at baseline that have been prospectively followed. We assessed the 10-year performance of the BOADICEA model (version 3) for ovarian cancer risk overall, and by known BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation statuses. We included women who did not have an ovarian cancer diagnosis or a bilateral oophorectomy prior to baseline, and who had sufficient data to calculate the 10-year BOADICEA risk score. We assessed model calibration using the ratio of the expected (E) to the observed (O) number of ovarian cancer cases in the cohort (E/O), and model discrimination by the concordance statistics (C-statistic) derived from the receiver operating characteristic curves. Results: There were 125 prospective ovarian cancer cases over a median of 12.3 years of follow-up among 18,534 women eligible for this analysis. For the overall cohort, the BOADICEA model was well calibrated with an E/O of 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.70, 1.08). There was a suggestion of model underprediction in the top quartile of assigned risk (1.33% observed risk vs. 1.09% predicted risk), however it was not statistically significant (p=0.15). The C-statistic was 0.77, 95% CI (0.73, 0.82). For known BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers combined, the E/O was 0.91, 95% CI (0.63, 1.32) and the C-statistic was 0.75, 95% CI (0.67, 0.83). For non-carriers, the E/O was 0.85, 95% CI (0.65, 1.11) and the C-statistic was 0.68, 95% CI (0.59, 0.74). Conclusion: The BOADICEA model is well-calibrated in predicting ovarian cancer risk over 10 years and has good discriminatory power for women at increased familial risk of breast and ovarian cancer, with or without a known mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2. Therefore, BOADICEA has clinical utility for evaluating ovarian cancer risk based on a woman's family cancer history and genetic information. Citation Format: Jennifer S. Ferris, Jeanine M. Genkinger, Mary Beth Terry, Yuyan Liao, Robert J. MacInnis, Irene L. Andrulis, Saundra S. Buys, Mary B. Daly, Esther M. John, John L. Hopper. External validation of the BOADICEA model for predicting ovarian cancer risk: The Breast Cancer Family Registry [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research 2020; 2020 Apr 27-28 and Jun 22-24. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(16 Suppl):Abstract nr 4623.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.061
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.096
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.321

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0610.096
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.309 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicBRCA gene mutations in cancer→French-language works237,207→