Comparison of Questionnaire-Based Breast Cancer Prediction Models in the Nurses' Health Study
- PMID: 31015199
- PMCID: PMC6684099
- DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-18-1039
Comparison of Questionnaire-Based Breast Cancer Prediction Models in the Nurses' Health Study
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.
©2019 American Association for Cancer Research.
Conflict of interest statement
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Figures

Similar articles
-
Use of Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curve Analysis for Tyrer-Cuzick and Gail in Breast Cancer Screening in Jiangxi Province, China.Med Sci Monit. 2018 Aug 9;24:5528-5532. doi: 10.12659/MSM.910108. Med Sci Monit. 2018. PMID: 30089770 Free PMC article.
-
Mammographic density adds accuracy to both the Tyrer-Cuzick and Gail breast cancer risk models in a prospective UK screening cohort.Breast Cancer Res. 2015 Dec 1;17(1):147. doi: 10.1186/s13058-015-0653-5. Breast Cancer Res. 2015. PMID: 26627479 Free PMC article.
-
Evaluation of the Tyrer-Cuzick (International Breast Cancer Intervention Study) model for breast cancer risk prediction in women with atypical hyperplasia.J Clin Oncol. 2010 Aug 1;28(22):3591-6. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.28.0784. Epub 2010 Jul 6. J Clin Oncol. 2010. PMID: 20606088 Free PMC article.
-
Breast Cancer Risk Prediction in Korean Women: Review and Perspectives on Personalized Breast Cancer Screening.J Breast Cancer. 2020 Aug;23(4):331-342. doi: 10.4048/jbc.2020.23.e40. J Breast Cancer. 2020. PMID: 32908785 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Impact of adding breast density to breast cancer risk models: A systematic review.Eur J Radiol. 2020 Jun;127:109019. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2020.109019. Epub 2020 Apr 19. Eur J Radiol. 2020. PMID: 32361308
Cited by
-
Simplified Breast Risk Tool Integrating Questionnaire Risk Factors, Mammographic Density, and Polygenic Risk Score: Development and Validation.Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2021 Apr;30(4):600-607. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-20-0900. Epub 2020 Dec 4. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2021. PMID: 33277321 Free PMC article.
-
A Validated Risk Prediction Model for Breast Cancer in US Black Women.J Clin Oncol. 2021 Dec 1;39(34):3866-3877. doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.01236. Epub 2021 Oct 8. J Clin Oncol. 2021. PMID: 34623926 Free PMC article.
-
Validation of an Abridged Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Model for the General Population.Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2023 May 1;16(5):281-291. doi: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-22-0460. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2023. PMID: 36862830 Free PMC article.
-
Validation of breast cancer risk assessment tools on a French-Canadian population-based cohort.BMJ Open. 2021 Apr 12;11(4):e045078. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045078. BMJ Open. 2021. PMID: 33846154 Free PMC article.
-
Addition of polygenic risk score to a risk calculator for prediction of breast cancer in US Black women.Breast Cancer Res. 2024 Jan 2;26(1):2. doi: 10.1186/s13058-023-01748-8. Breast Cancer Res. 2024. PMID: 38167144 Free PMC article.
References
-
- 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
-
- 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
-
- 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
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical