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
. 2023 Apr;198(2):335-347.
doi: 10.1007/s10549-022-06834-7. Epub 2023 Feb 7.

Validation of a breast cancer risk prediction model based on the key risk factors: family history, mammographic density and polygenic risk

Richard Allman  1 , Yi Mu  2 , Gillian S Dite  3 , Erika Spaeth  4 , John L Hopper  5 , Bernard A Rosner  2
Affiliations

Validation of a breast cancer risk prediction model based on the key risk factors: family history, mammographic density and polygenic risk

Richard Allman et al. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2023 Apr.

Abstract

Purpose: We compared a simple breast cancer risk prediction model, BRISK (which includes mammographic density, polygenic risk and clinical factors), against a similar model with more risk factors (simplified Rosner) and against two commonly used clinical models (Gail and IBIS).

Methods: Using nested case-control data from the Nurses' Health Study, we compared the models' association, discrimination and calibration. Classification performance was compared between Gail and BRISK for 5-year risks and between IBIS and BRISK for remaining lifetime risk.

Results: The odds ratio per standard deviation was 1.43 (95% CI 1.32, 1.55) for BRISK 5-year risk, 1.07 (95% CI 0.99, 1.14) for Gail 5-year risk, 1.72 (95% CI 1.59, 1.87) for simplified Rosner 10-year risk, 1.51 (95% CI 1.41, 1.62) for BRISK remaining lifetime risk and 1.26 (95% CI 1.16, 1.36) for IBIS remaining lifetime risk. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was improved for BRISK over Gail for 5-year risk (AUC = 0.636 versus 0.511, P < 0.0001) and for BRISK over IBIS for remaining lifetime risk (AUC = 0.647 versus 0.571, P < 0.0001). BRISK was well calibrated for the estimation of both 5-year risk (expected/observed [E/O] = 1.03; 95% CI 0.73, 1.46) and remaining lifetime risk (E/O = 1.01; 95% CI 0.86, 1.17). The Gail 5-year risk (E/O = 0.85; 95% CI 0.58, 1.24) and IBIS remaining lifetime risk (E/O = 0.73; 95% CI 0.60, 0.87) were not well calibrated, with both under-estimating risk. BRISK improves classification of risk compared to Gail 5-year risk (NRI = 0.31; standard error [SE] = 0.031) and IBIS remaining lifetime risk (NRI = 0.287; SE = 0.035).

Conclusion: BRISK performs better than two commonly used clinical risk models and no worse compared to a similar model with more risk factors.

Keywords: Mammographic density; Polygenic risk; Risk prediction model.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Gillian Dite and Richard Allman are employees of Genetic Technologies Limited. Erika Spaeth is an employee of Phenogen Sciences Inc (a subsidiary of Genetic Technologies Limited). Aspects of this manuscript are covered by Australian Provisional Patent Application No: 2021903955, Breast Cancer Risk Assessment.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Distribution of risk scores at clinically relevant thresholds for controls (blue) and cases (orange). A BRISK 5-year risk, B Gail 5-year risk, C BRISK remaining lifetime risk, D IBIS remaining lifetime risk
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer Familial breast cancer: collaborative reanalysis of individual data from 52 epidemiological studies including 58,209 women with breast cancer and 101,986 women without the disease. Lancet. 2001;358:1389–1399. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06524-2. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cappello NM, Richetelli D, Lee CI. The impact of breast density reporting laws on women’s awareness of density-associated risks and conversations regarding supplemental screening with providers. J Am Coll Radiol. 2019;16:139–146. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2018.08.009. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mavaddat N, Pharoah PD, Michailidou K, Tyrer J, Brook MN, et al. Prediction of breast cancer risk based on profiling with common genetic variants. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015 doi: 10.1093/jnci/djv036. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Allman R, Dite GS, Hopper JL, Gordon O, Starlard-Davenport A, et al. SNPs and breast cancer risk prediction for African American and Hispanic women. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;154:583–589. doi: 10.1007/s10549-015-3641-7. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Dite GS, MacInnis RJ, Bickerstaffe A, Dowty JG, Allman R, et al. Breast cancer risk prediction using clinical models and 77 independent risk-associated SNPs for women aged under 50 years: Australian breast cancer family registry. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2016;25:359–365. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-15-0838. - DOI - PMC - PubMed