title: Recalibration of the Gail model for predicting invasive breast cancer risk in Spanish women: a population-based cohort study.
abstract: The Gail model for predicting the absolute risk of invasive breast cancer has been validated extensively in US populations, but its performance in the international setting remains uncertain. We evaluated the predictive accuracy of the Gail model in 54,649 Spanish women aged 45-68 years who were free of breast cancer at the 1996-1998 baseline mammographic examination in the population-based Navarre Breast Cancer Screening Program. Incident cases of invasive breast cancer and competing deaths were ascertained until the end of 2005 (average follow-up of 7.7 years) through linkage with population-based cancer and mortality registries. The Gail model was tested for calibration and discrimination in its original form and after recalibration to the lower breast cancer incidence and risk factor prevalence in the study cohort, and compared through cross-validation with a Navarre model fully developed from this cohort. The original Gail model overpredicted significantly the 835 cases of invasive breast cancer observed in the cohort (ratio of expected to observed cases 1.46, 95 % CI 1.36-1.56). The recalibrated Gail model was well calibrated overall (expected-to-observed ratio 1.00, 95 % CI 0.94-1.07), but it tended to underestimate risk for women in low-risk quintiles and to overestimate risk in high-risk quintiles (P = 0.01). The Navarre model showed good cross-validated calibration overall (expected-to-observed ratio 0.98, 95 % CI 0.92-1.05) and in different cohort subsets. The Navarre and Gail models had modest cross-validated discrimination indexes of 0.542 (95 % CI 0.521-0.564) and 0.544 (95 % CI 0.523-0.565), respectively. Although the original Gail model cannot be applied directly to populations with different underlying rates of invasive breast cancer, it can readily be recalibrated to provide unbiased estimates of absolute risk in such populations. Nevertheless, its limited discrimination ability at the individual level highlights the need to develop extended models with additional strong risk factors.
authors: National Center for Epidemiology, Carlos III Institute of Health, Monforte de Lemos 5, 28029 Madrid, Spain. rpastor@isciii.es
authors: Roberto
authors: R
authors: Pastor-Barriuso
authors: Nieves
authors: N
authors: Ascunce
authors: María
authors: M
authors: Ederra
authors: Nieves
authors: N
authors: Erdozáin
authors: Alberto
authors: A
authors: Murillo
authors: José E
authors: JE
authors: Alés-Martínez
authors: Marina
authors: M
authors: Pollán
mesh_terms: D000367:Age Factors; D001943:Breast Neoplasms / Q000453:epidemiology* / Q000473:pathology; D015331:Cohort Studies; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D015994:Incidence; D015233:Models, Statistical; D009361:Neoplasm Invasiveness; D011159:Population Surveillance; D016016:Proportional Hazards Models; D012306:Risk; D013030:Spain; D044465:White People
references: JAMA. 2010 Jan 20;303(3):235-41
references: 20071471
references: Biometrics. 1990 Sep;46(3):813-26
references: 2242416
references: J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006 Sep 6;98(17):1215-26
references: 16954474
references: Breast Cancer Res. 2012 Jan 30;14(1):R19
references: 22289271
references: Eur J Cancer Prev. 2004 Jun;13(3):183-91
references: 15167217
references: J Clin Oncol. 2010 May 10;28(14):2411-7
references: 20368565
references: J Clin Oncol. 2009 Jul 1;27(19):3235-58
references: 19470930
references: Am J Epidemiol. 2001 Jul 15;154(2):174-9
references: 11447052
references: JAMA. 2004 Jan 7;291(1):47-53
references: 14709575
references: J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999 Sep 15;91(18):1541-8
references: 10491430
references: J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007 Nov 21;99(22):1695-705
references: 18000216
references: N Engl J Med. 2007 Apr 19;356(16):1670-4
references: 17442911
references: Stat Med. 2004 Jul 15;23(13):2109-23
references: 15211606
references: J Natl Cancer Inst. 1989 Dec 20;81(24):1879-86
references: 2593165
references: Med Clin (Barc). 2011 Dec 10;137(15):678-84
references: 21752409
references: Breast Cancer Res. 2012 Feb 07;14(1):R25
references: 22314178
references: N Engl J Med. 2010 Mar 18;362(11):986-93
references: 20237344
references: Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012 Feb;132(1):347-53
references: 22147080
references: Ann Oncol. 2008 Apr;19(4):614-22
references: 18024988
references: J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998 Sep 16;90(18):1371-88
references: 9747868
references: Cancer. 2010 Oct 15;116(20):4872-81
references: 20597133
references: Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2002 Mar;72(2):107-15
references: 12038701
references: Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012 Apr;132(2):365-77
references: 22037780
references: Ann Oncol. 2010 May;21 Suppl 3:iii43-51
references: 20427360
references: J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001 Mar 7;93(5):358-66
references: 11238697
references: J Med Genet. 2003 Nov;40(11):807-14
references: 14627668
references: J Clin Oncol. 2008 Nov 20;26(33):5374-9
references: 18854574
references: Biostatistics. 2005 Apr;6(2):227-39
references: 15772102
references: N Engl J Med. 2005 Jul 21;353(3):229-37
references: 16034008
references: J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008 Jul 16;100(14):1037-41
references: 18612136
references: J Med Screen. 2007;14(1):14-20
references: 17362566
references: N Engl J Med. 2011 Jun 23;364(25):2381-91
references: 21639806
references: J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009 Nov 18;101(22):1584-91
references: 19861303
references: Lancet. 2001 Oct 27;358(9291):1389-99
references: 11705483
references: Med Clin (Barc). 2002 Jun 8;119(1):4-8
references: 12061998
references: Stat Med. 2011 May 10;30(10):1090-104
references: 21337591
references: J Natl Cancer Inst. 1994 Apr 20;86(8):620-5
references: 8003106
references: J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006 Dec 6;98(23):1686-93
references: 17148770
references: JAMA. 2004 Sep 22;292(12):1480-9
references: 15383520
references: J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999 Nov 3;91(21):1829-46
references: 10547390