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
Review
. 2021 Feb 19;3(2):144-155.
doi: 10.1093/jbi/wbab001. eCollection 2021 Mar-Apr.

Assessing Risk of Breast Cancer: A Review of Risk Prediction Models

Affiliations
Review

Assessing Risk of Breast Cancer: A Review of Risk Prediction Models

Geunwon Kim et al. J Breast Imaging. .

Abstract

Accurate and individualized breast cancer risk assessment can be used to guide personalized screening and prevention recommendations. Existing risk prediction models use genetic and nongenetic risk factors to provide an estimate of a woman's breast cancer risk and/or the likelihood that she has a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. Each model is best suited for specific clinical scenarios and may have limited applicability in certain types of patients. For example, the Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool, which identifies women who would benefit from chemoprevention, is readily accessible and user-friendly but cannot be used in women under 35 years of age or those with prior breast cancer or lobular carcinoma in situ. Emerging research on deep learning-based artificial intelligence (AI) models suggests that mammographic images contain risk indicators that could be used to strengthen existing risk prediction models. This article reviews breast cancer risk factors, describes the appropriate use, strengths, and limitations of each risk prediction model, and discusses the emerging role of AI for risk assessment.

Keywords: breast cancer; mammography; risk assessment; screening.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Risk assessment algorithm for breast cancer. Figure adapted from Barke and Freivogel (37), with permission.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Receiver operating characteristic curve. A perfect classifier with an area under the curve (AUC) of 1.0 is represented by the solid blue line, and a random classifier with an AUC of 0.5 is represented by the dashed red line. The classifier represented by the solid purple line has better discriminatory accuracy than the classifier represented by the solid green line, since its AUC is closer to 1.0.

References

    1. Onega T, Beaber EF, Sprague BL, et al. . Breast cancer screening in an era of personalized regimens: a conceptual model and National Cancer Institute initiative for risk-based and preference-based approaches at a population level. Cancer 2014;120(19):2955–2964. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, et al. ; American Cancer Society Breast Cancer Advisory Group . American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin 2007;57(2):75–89. - PubMed
    1. Monticciolo DL, Newell MS, Moy L, Niell B, Monsees B, Sickles EA. Breast cancer screening in women at higher-than-average risk: recommendations from the ACR. J Am Coll Radiol 2018;15(3):408–414. - PubMed
    1. Bakker MF, de Lange SV, Pijnappel RM, et al. ; DENSE Trial Study Group . Supplemental MRI screening for women with extremely dense breast tissue. N Engl J Med 2019;381(22):2091–2102. - PubMed
    1. Wang L, Strigel RM. Supplemental screening for patients at intermediate and high risk for breast cancer. Radiol Clin North Am 2021;59(1):67–83. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources