Risk prediction models of breast cancer: a systematic review of model performances

被引:87
|
作者
Anothaisintawee, Thunyarat [2 ]
Teerawattananon, Yot [3 ]
Wiratkapun, Chollathip [4 ]
Kasamesup, Vijj [5 ]
Thakkinstian, Ammarin [1 ]
机构
[1] Mahidol Univ, Ramathibodi Hosp, Fac Med, Sect Clin Epidemiol & Biostat, Bangkok 10400, Thailand
[2] Ramathibodi Hosp, Sect Clin Epidemiol & Biostat, Dept Family Med, Bangkok, Thailand
[3] Minist Publ Hlth, Hlth Intervent & Technol Assessment Program, Nonthaburi, Thailand
[4] Mahidol Univ, Ramathibodi Hosp, Fac Med, Dept Radiol, Bangkok 10400, Thailand
[5] Mahidol Univ, Ramathibodi Hosp, Fac Med, Dept Community Med, Bangkok 10400, Thailand
关键词
Breast cancer; Risk prediction model; Systematic review; GAIL MODEL; FAMILY-HISTORY; NURSES HEALTH; SCREENING POPULATION; FEMALE-POPULATION; RECEPTOR STATUS; WOMEN; VALIDATION; DENSITY; MARKER;
D O I
10.1007/s10549-011-1853-z
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
The number of risk prediction models has been increasingly developed, for estimating about breast cancer in individual women. However, those model performances are questionable. We therefore have conducted a study with the aim to systematically review previous risk prediction models. The results from this review help to identify the most reliable model and indicate the strengths and weaknesses of each model for guiding future model development. We searched MEDLINE (PubMed) from 1949 and EMBASE (Ovid) from 1974 until October 2010. Observational studies which constructed models using regression methods were selected. Information about model development and performance were extracted. Twenty-five out of 453 studies were eligible. Of these, 18 developed prediction models and 7 validated existing prediction models. Up to 13 variables were included in the models and sample sizes for each study ranged from 550 to 2,404,636. Internal validation was performed in four models, while five models had external validation. Gail and Rosner and Colditz models were the significant models which were subsequently modified by other scholars. Calibration performance of most models was fair to good (expected/observe ratio: 0.87-1.12), but discriminatory accuracy was poor to fair both in internal validation (concordance statistics: 0.53-0.66) and in external validation (concordance statistics: 0.56-0.63). Most models yielded relatively poor discrimination in both internal and external validation. This poor discriminatory accuracy of existing models might be because of a lack of knowledge about risk factors, heterogeneous subtypes of breast cancer, and different distributions of risk factors across populations. In addition the concordance statistic itself is insensitive to measure the improvement of discrimination. Therefore, the new method such as net reclassification index should be considered to evaluate the improvement of the performance of a new develop model.
引用
收藏
页码:1 / 10
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Risk prediction models of breast cancer: a systematic review of model performances
    Thunyarat Anothaisintawee
    Yot Teerawattananon
    Chollathip Wiratkapun
    Vijj Kasamesup
    Ammarin Thakkinstian
    [J]. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 2012, 133 : 1 - 10
  • [2] Risk prediction models for breast cancer: a systematic review
    Zheng, Yadi
    Li, Jiang
    Wu, Zheng
    Li, He
    Cao, Maomao
    Li, Ni
    He, Jie
    [J]. BMJ OPEN, 2022, 12 (07):
  • [3] A systematic review and quality assessment of individualised breast cancer risk prediction models
    Javier Louro
    Margarita Posso
    Michele Hilton Boon
    Marta Román
    Laia Domingo
    Xavier Castells
    María Sala
    [J]. British Journal of Cancer, 2019, 121 : 76 - 85
  • [4] A systematic review and quality assessment of individualised breast cancer risk prediction models
    Louro, Javier
    Posso, Margarita
    Boon, Michele Hilton
    Roman, Marta
    Domingo, Laia
    Castells, Xavier
    Sala, Maria
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2019, 121 (01) : 76 - 85
  • [5] Risk Prediction Models for Cardiotoxicity of Chemotherapy Among Patients With Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review
    Kabore, Elise G.
    Macdonald, Conor
    Kabore, Ahmed
    Didier, Romain
    Arveux, Patrick
    Meda, Nicolas
    Boutron-Ruault, Marie-Christine
    Guenancia, Charles
    [J]. JAMA NETWORK OPEN, 2023, 6 (02) : E230569
  • [6] Assessing Risk of Breast Cancer: A Review of Risk Prediction Models
    Bhatt, Asha A.
    Woodard, Genevieve A.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF BREAST IMAGING, 2021, 3 (02) : 144 - 155
  • [7] Risk Prediction Models for Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review
    Gray, Eoin P.
    Teare, M. Dawn
    Stevens, John
    Archer, Rachel
    [J]. CLINICAL LUNG CANCER, 2016, 17 (02) : 95 - 106
  • [8] Risk Prediction Models for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review
    Usher-Smith, Juliet A.
    Walter, Fiona M.
    Emery, Jon D.
    Win, Aung K.
    Griffin, Simon J.
    [J]. CANCER PREVENTION RESEARCH, 2016, 9 (01) : 13 - 26
  • [9] Risk Prediction Models for Kidney Cancer: A Systematic Review
    Harrison, Hannah
    Thompson, Rachel E.
    Lin, Zhiyuan
    Rossi, Sabrina H.
    Stewart, Grant D.
    Griffin, Simon J.
    Usher-Smith, Juliet A.
    [J]. EUROPEAN UROLOGY FOCUS, 2021, 7 (06): : 1380 - 1390
  • [10] Risk Prediction Models for Oral Cancer: A Systematic Review
    Espressivo, Aufia
    Pan, Z. Sienna
    Usher-Smith, Juliet A.
    Harrison, Hannah
    [J]. CANCERS, 2024, 16 (03)