Differences and similarities in breast cancer risk assessment models in clinical practice: which model to choose?
To show differences and similarities between risk estimation models for breast cancer in healthy women from BRCA1/2-negative or untested families. After a systematic literature search seven models were selected: Gail-2, Claus Model, Claus Tables, BOADICEA, Jonker Model, Claus-Extended Formula, and Tyrer-Cuzick. Life-time risks (LTRs) for developing breast cancer were estimated for two healthy counsellees, aged 40, with a variety in family histories and personal risk factors. Comparisons were made with guideline thresholds for individual screening. Without a clinically significant family history LTRs varied from 6.7% (Gail-2 Model) to 12.8% (Tyrer-Cuzick Model). Adding more information on personal risk factors increased the LTRs and yearly mammography will be advised in most situations. Older models (i.e. Gail-2 and Claus) are likely to underestimate the LTR for developing breast cancer as their baseline risk for women is too low. When models include personal risk factors, surveillance thresholds have to be reformulated. For current clinical practice, the Tyrer-Cuzick Model and the BOADICEA Model seem good choices.
Jacobi
Catharina E
CE
Department of Medical Decision Making, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
de Bock
Geertruida H
GH
Siegerink
Bob
B
van Asperen
Christi J
CJ
D001943:Breast Neoplasms / Q000453:epidemiology* / Q000235:genetics; D005260:Female; D020022:Genetic Predisposition to Disease; D006801:Humans; D015233:Models, Statistical; D012307:Risk Factors