Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Jan 8;17(1):1.
doi: 10.1186/s13058-014-0509-4.

The use of the Gail model, body mass index and SNPs to predict breast cancer among women with abnormal (BI-RADS 4) mammograms

Anne Marie McCarthy  1 , Brad Keller  2 , Despina Kontos  3 , Leigh Boghossian  4 , Erin McGuire  5 , Mirar Bristol  6 , Jinbo Chen  7 , Susan Domchek  8 , Katrina Armstrong  9
Affiliations

The use of the Gail model, body mass index and SNPs to predict breast cancer among women with abnormal (BI-RADS 4) mammograms

Anne Marie McCarthy et al. Breast Cancer Res. .

Abstract

Introduction: Mammography screening results in a significant number of false-positives. The use of pretest breast cancer risk factors to guide follow-up of abnormal mammograms could improve the positive predictive value of screening. We evaluated the use of the Gail model, body mass index (BMI), and genetic markers to predict cancer diagnosis among women with abnormal mammograms. We also examined the extent to which pretest risk factors could reclassify women without cancer below the biopsy threshold.

Methods: We recruited a prospective cohort of women referred for biopsy with abnormal (BI-RADS 4) mammograms according to the American College of Radiology's Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). Breast cancer risk factors were assessed prior to biopsy. A validated panel of 12 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with breast cancer were measured. Logistic regression was used to assess the association of Gail risk factors, BMI and SNPs with cancer diagnosis (invasive or ductal carcinoma in situ). Model discrimination was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, and calibration was assessed using the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test. The distribution of predicted probabilities of a cancer diagnosis were compared for women with or without breast cancer.

Results: In the multivariate model, age (odds ratio (OR)=1.05; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.03 to 1.08; P<0.001), SNP panel relative risk (OR=2.30; 95% CI, 1.06 to 4.99, P=0.035) and BMI (≥30 kg/m2 versus <25 kg/m(2); OR=2.20; 95% CI, 1.05 to 4.58; P=0.036) were significantly associated with breast cancer diagnosis. Older women were more likely than younger women to be diagnosed with breast cancer. The SNP panel relative risk remained strongly associated with breast cancer diagnosis after multivariable adjustment. Higher BMI was also strongly associated with increased odds of a breast cancer diagnosis. Obese women (OR=2.20; 95% CI, 1.05 to 4.58; P=0.036) had more than twice the odds of cancer diagnosis compared to women with a BMI<25 kg/m2. The SNP panel appeared to have predictive ability among both white and black women.

Conclusions: Breast cancer risk factors, including BMI and genetic markers, are predictive of cancer diagnosis among women with BI-RADS 4 mammograms. Using pretest risk factors to guide follow-up of abnormal mammograms could reduce the burden of false-positive mammograms.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Distribution of the predicted probability of cancer using Gail factors, body mass index and single-nucleotide polymorphism panel.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. US Preventive Services Task Force Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:716–26. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-10-200911170-00008. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hubbard RA, Kerlikowske K, Flowers CI, Yankaskas BC, Zhu W, Miglioretti DL. Cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening mammography: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:481–92. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00004. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Chubak J, Boudreau DM, Fishman PA, Elmore JG. Cost of breast-related care in the year following false positive screening mammograms. Med Care. 2010;48:815–20. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181e57918. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Brewer NT, Salz T, Lillie SE. Systematic review: the long-term effects of false-positive mammograms. Ann Intern Med. 2007;146:502–10. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-146-7-200704030-00006. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gail MH, Brinton LA, Byar DP, Corle DK, Green SB, Schairer C, et al. Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1989;81:1879–86. doi: 10.1093/jnci/81.24.1879. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms