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
. 2019 Jul;28(7):1187-1194.
doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-18-1039. Epub 2019 Apr 23.

Comparison of Questionnaire-Based Breast Cancer Prediction Models in the Nurses' Health Study

Affiliations

Comparison of Questionnaire-Based Breast Cancer Prediction Models in the Nurses' Health Study

Robert J Glynn et al. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2019 Jul.

Abstract

Background: The Gail model and the model developed by Tyrer and Cuzick are two questionnaire-based approaches with demonstrated ability to predict development of breast cancer in a general population.

Methods: We compared calibration, discrimination, and net reclassification of these models, using data from questionnaires sent every 2 years to 76,922 participants in the Nurses' Health Study between 1980 and 2006, with 4,384 incident invasive breast cancers identified by 2008 (median follow-up, 24 years; range, 1-28 years). In a random one third sample of women, we also compared the performance of these models with predictions from the Rosner-Colditz model estimated from the remaining participants.

Results: Both the Gail and Tyrer-Cuzick models showed evidence of miscalibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow P < 0.001 for each) with notable (P < 0.01) overprediction in higher-risk women (2-year risk above about 1%) and underprediction in lower-risk women (risk below about 0.25%). The Tyrer-Cuzick model had slightly higher C-statistics both overall (P < 0.001) and in age-specific comparisons than the Gail model (overall C, 0.63 for Tyrer-Cuzick vs. 0.61 for the Gail model). Evaluation of net reclassification did not favor either model. In the one third sample, the Rosner-Colditz model had better calibration and discrimination than the other two models. All models had C-statistics <0.60 among women ages ≥70 years.

Conclusions: Both the Gail and Tyrer-Cuzick models had some ability to discriminate breast cancer cases and noncases, but have limitations in their model fit.

Impact: Refinements may be needed to questionnaire-based approaches to predict breast cancer in older and higher-risk women.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
a. Scatterplot of observed versus expected counts over deciles of risk based on the Gail model with 45 degree line* *higl and logl denote the upper and lower 95% confidence interval limits for the observed count b. Scatterplot of observed versus expected counts over deciles of risk based on the Tyrer-Cuzick model with 45 degree line* *hitc and lotc denote the upper and lower 95% confidence interval limits for the observed count

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Amir E, Evans DG, Shenton A, Lalloo F, Moran A, Boggis C, Wilson M, Howell A. Evaluation of breast cancer risk assessment packages in the family history evaluation and screening programme. J Med Genet. 2003; 40(11):807–14. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Meads C, Ahmed I, Riley RD. A systematic review of breast cancer incidence risk prediction models with meta-analysis of their performance. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012; 132: 365–77. - PubMed
    1. Quante AS, Whittemore AS, Shriver T, Hopper JL, Strauch K, Terry MB. Practical problems with clinical guidelines for breast cancer prevention based on remaining lifetime risk. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015; 107(7). pii: djv124. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djv124. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bevers TB, Anderson BO, Bonaccio E, Buys S, Daly MB, Dempsey PJ, Farrar WB, Fleming I, Garber JE, Harris RE, Heerdt AS, Helvie M, Huff JG, Khakpour N, Khan SA, Krontiras H, Lyman G, Rafferty E, Shaw S, Smith ML, Tsangaris TN, Williams C, Yankeelov T; National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: breast cancer screening and diagnosis. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2009; 7(10):1060–96. - PubMed
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. NICE guideline CG164. Familial breast cancer: classification, care and managing breast cancer and related risks in people with a family history of breast cancer. Available at https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg164. - PubMed

Publication types