Abstract PS10-09: Development of an absolute risk prediction model for premenopausal breast cancer in an international consortium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Risk prediction models that have been developed for overall breast cancer risk are based on a limited number of premenopausal cases in individual cohorts. As some risk factors differ in their associations with pre- versus postmenopausal breast cancer, a distinct risk prediction model is needed for premenopausal breast cancer. We developed a risk prediction model for premenopausal breast cancer using 779,601 participants and 9,665 incident cases from 18 prospective studies within the Premenopausal Breast Cancer Collaborative Group (PBCCG), across North America (N=9), Europe (N=6), Australia (N=1), and Asia (N=2). Data were split, within each cohort, into training (2/3) and testing (1/3) datasets. Individual risk was assessed in five-year intervals, using variables reported at the start of the time interval. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to model risk factors in a backwards-selection method, stratified by cohort: age at menarche, age at first birth, parity, breastfeeding (months), height (cm), BMI (kg/m2), BMI at age 18, recent weight change (kg), alcohol consumption (drinks/week), first-degree family history of breast cancer, and personal history of benign breast disease. To enable the use of information from all cohorts despite differences in missing variables by design, cohorts were grouped by available variables and risk models were fit for each group. In cohorts with incomplete data, model coefficients were adjusted based on the correlation of covariates with the missing variables in the complete case dataset. Coefficients were meta-analyzed with inverse variance weighting to obtain final coefficients. Discrimination was evaluated in the testing dataset by calculation of the c-index. Work is ongoing to calibrate the model based on five-year absolute risk using GLOBOCAN continent- and age-specific incidence rates to represent baseline risk. The final model included age at menarche, parity, height, BMI, BMI at age 18, first-degree family history of breast cancer, and history of benign breast disease. Young adulthood BMI and BMI (at start of the 5-year risk interval) were associated with a decreased risk (Hazard Ratio (HR) (95% confidence interval (CI)) per 5 kg/m2 = 0.87 (0.81-0.93) and 0.90 (0.86-0.95), respectively) as was parity (HR (95% CI) = 0.92 (0.90-0.94)). Height was associated with increased risk (HR (95% CI) per 10 cm = 1.14 (1.07-1.21)), while history of benign breast disease and family history were associated with larger increases in risk (HR (95% CI) = 1.64 (1.30-2.06) and 1.76 (1.63-1.90), respectively). Model discrimination was higher than that reported for women under 50 years in existing breast cancer risk prediction models considering clinical factors (AUC (95% CI) = 0.61 (0.59-0.62)). Calibration of absolute 5-year risk is ongoing. Several factors driving risk prediction of postmenopausal breast cancer have similar influence on risk of premenopausal breast cancer, while family history has a stronger influence on premenopausal breast cancer risk. Our model demonstrates acceptable discrimination and will enable individual 5-year absolute risk prediction for premenopausal breast cancer. Citation Format: Kristen Brantley, Michael Jones, Minouk Schoemaker, Hazel Nichols, Anthony Swerdlow, Robert MacInnis, Roger Milne, Tess Clenenden, Yu Chen, Xiao-Ou Shu, Wei Zheng, Woon-Puay Koh, Jian-Min Yuan, Cari Kitahara, Martha Linet, Dale Sandler, Bernard A Rosner, Peter Kraft, A. Heather Eliassen. Development of an absolute risk prediction model for premenopausal breast cancer in an international consortium [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl):Abstract nr PS10-09.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".