Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 132, Issue 2, pp 365–377 | Cite as

A systematic review of breast cancer incidence risk prediction models with meta-analysis of their performance

  • Catherine Meads
  • Ikhlaaq Ahmed
  • Richard D. Riley


A risk prediction model is a statistical tool for estimating the probability that a currently healthy individual with specific risk factors will develop a condition in the future such as breast cancer. Reliably accurate prediction models can inform future disease burdens, health policies and individual decisions. Breast cancer prediction models containing modifiable risk factors, such as alcohol consumption, BMI or weight, condom use, exogenous hormone use and physical activity, are of particular interest to women who might be considering how to reduce their risk of breast cancer and clinicians developing health policies to reduce population incidence rates. We performed a systematic review to identify and evaluate the performance of prediction models for breast cancer that contain modifiable factors. A protocol was developed and a sensitive search in databases including MEDLINE and EMBASE was conducted in June 2010. Extensive use was made of reference lists. Included were any articles proposing or validating a breast cancer prediction model in a general female population, with no language restrictions. Duplicate data extraction and quality assessment were conducted. Results were summarised qualitatively, and where possible meta-analysis of model performance statistics was undertaken. The systematic review found 17 breast cancer models, each containing a different but often overlapping set of modifiable and other risk factors, combined with an estimated baseline risk that was also often different. Quality of reporting was generally poor, with characteristics of included participants and fitted model results often missing. Only four models received independent validation in external data, most notably the ‘Gail 2’ model with 12 validations. None of the models demonstrated consistently outstanding ability to accurately discriminate between those who did and those who did not develop breast cancer. For example, random-effects meta-analyses of the performance of the ‘Gail 2’ model showed the average C statistic was 0.63 (95% CI 0.59–0.67), and the expected/observed ratio of events varied considerably across studies (95% prediction interval for E/O ratio when the model was applied in practice was 0.75–1.19). There is a need for models with better predictive performance but, given the large amount of work already conducted, further improvement of existing models based on conventional risk factors is perhaps unlikely. Research to identify new risk factors with large additionally predictive ability is therefore needed, alongside clearer reporting and continual validation of new models as they develop.


Breast cancer Systematic review Prediction models 



We would like to thank Dr Gill Lawrence for assistance and supervision at the beginning of this project.

Conflicts of interest



  1. 1.
    Steyerberg EW, Vickers AJ, Cook NR, Gerds T, Gonen M, Obuchowski N et al (2010) Assessing the performance of predictive models. Epidemiology 21(1):128–138PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Meads CA, Cnossen JS, Meher S, Juarez-Garcia A, ter Riet G, Duley L et al (2008) Methods of prediction and prevention of pre-eclampsia:systematic reviews of accuracy and effectiveness literature with economic modelling. Health Technol Assess 12(6):1–270Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jacobi C, de Bock GH, Seigerink B, van Asperen CJ (2009) Differences and similarities in breast cancer risk assessment models in clinical practice: which model to choose? Breast Cancer Res Treat 115:381–390PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Royston P, Moons KG, Altman DG, Vergouwe Y (2009) Prognosis and prognostic research: Developing a prognostic model. Br Med J 338:b604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Williams C, Brunskill S, Altman D, Briggs A, Campbell H, Clarke M et al. (2006) Cost-effectiveness of using prognostic information to select women with breast cancer for adjuvant systemic therapy. Health Technol Assess 10(34)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Altman D (2009) Prognostic models: a methodological framework and review of models for breast cancer. Cancer Invest 27:235–243PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chen WY, Colditz GA (2007) Risk factors and hormone-receptor status: epidemiology, risk-prediction models and treatment implications for breast cancer. Nat Clin Pract Oncol 4(7):415–423PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tice JA, Cummings SR, Smith-Bindman R, Ichikawa L, Barlow WE, Kerlikowske K et al (2008) Using clinical factors and mammographic breast density to estimate breast cancer risk: development and validation of a new predictive model. Ann Intern Med 148(5):337–347PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rosner B, Colditz GA, Iglehart JD, Hankinson SE (2008) Risk prediction models with incomplete data with application to prediction of estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer: prospective data from the Nurses’ Health Study. Breast Cancer Res 10(4):R55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    DerSimonian R, Laird N (1986) Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7:177–188PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stata Corporation. Statistical software release 11.0. 2009. College Station, TexasGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Riley RD, Higgins JP, Deeks JJ (2011) The interpretation of random effects meta-analysis. Br Med J 342:d549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rockhill B, Byrne C, Rosner B, Louie MM, Colditz G (2003) Breast cancer risk prediction with a log-incidence model: evaluation of accuracy. J Clin Epidemiol 56(9):856–861Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Viallon V, Ragusa S, Clavel-Chapelon F, Bénichou J (2009) How to evaluate the calibration of a disease risk prediction tool. Stat Med 28(6):901–916Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Arne GN (2009) Breast cancer risk assessments to barrier contraception exposure. A new approach. Makedonska Akademija na Naukite i Umetnostite Oddelenie Za Bioloshki i Meditsinski Nauki Prilozi 30(1):217–232Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Barlow WE, White E, Ballard-Barbash R, Vacek PM, Titus-Ernstoff L, Carney PA et al (2006) Prospective breast cancer risk prediction model for women undergoing screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 98(17):1204–1214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cook NR, Rosner BA, Hankinson SE, Colditz GA (2009) Mammographic screening and risk factors for breast cancer. Am J Epidemiol 170(11):1422–1432PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Boyle PM (2004) Contribution of three components to individual cancer risk predicting breast cancer risk in Italy. Eur J Cancer Prev 13(3):183–191PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chen J, Pee D, Ayyagari R, Graubard B, Schairer C, Byrne C et al (2006) Projecting absolute invasive breast cancer risk in white women with a model that includes mammographic density. J Natl Cancer Inst 98(17):1215–1226PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Colditz GA, Rosner B (2000) Cumulative risk of breast cancer to age 70 years according to risk factor status: data from the Nurses Health Study. Am J Epidemiol 152(10):950–964PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rosner B, Colditz GA, Willett WC (1994) Reproductive risk factors in a prospective study of breast cancer: the Nurses’ Health Study. Am J Epidemiol 139(8):819–835PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Decarli A, Calza S, Masala G, Specchia C, Palli D, Gail MH et al (2006) Gail model for prediction of absolute risk of invasive breast cancer: independent evaluation in the Florence-European Prospective Investigation Into Cancer and Nutrition cohort. J Natl Cancer Inst 98(23):1686–1693PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gail MH, Brinton LA, Byar DP, Corle DK, Green SB, Schairer C et al (1989) Projecting individualised probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst 81:1879–1886PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Constantino JP, Gail MH, Pee D, Anderson S, Redmond CK, Benichou J et al (2010) Validation studies for models projecting the risk of invasive and total breast cancer incidence. J Natl Cancer Inst 91(18):1541–1548Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gail MH, Constantino JP, Pee D, Bondy M, Newmon L, Selvan M et al (2007) Projecting individualized absolute invasive breast cancer risk in African American women. J Natl Cancer Inst 99(23):1782–1792Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Novotny J, Pecen L, Petruzelka L, Svobodnik A, Dusek L, Danes J et al (2006) Breast cancer risk assessment in the Czech female population—an adjustment of the original Gail model. Breast Cancer Res Treat 95:29–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rosner B, Colditz GA (1996) Nurses Health study: log-incidence mathematical model of breast cancer incidence. J Natl Cancer Inst 88(6):359–364PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tice JA, Cummings SR, Ziv E, Kerlikowske K (2005) Mammographic breast density and the Gail model for breast cancer risk prediction in a screening population. Breast Cancer Res Treat 94(2):115–122PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tyrer J, Duffy SW, Cuzick J. A breast cancer prediction model incorporating familial and personal risk factors. [Erratum appears in Stat Med. 2005 Jan 15;24(1):156]. Stat Med 2004; 23(7):1111–1130Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wacholder S, Hartge P, Prentice R, Garcia-Closas M, Feigelson HS, Diver WR et al (2010) Performance of common genetic variants in breast-cancer risk models. N Engl J Med 362(11):986–993PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bondy MLL (1994) Validation of a breast cancer risk assessment model in women with a positive family history. J Natl Cancer Inst 86(8):20Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Costantino JP, Gail MH, Pee D, Anderson S, Redmond CK, Benichou J et al (1999) Validation of studies for models projecting the risk of invasive and total breast cancer incidence. J Natl Cancer Inst 91(18):1541–1548PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Spiegelman DC (1994) Validation of the Gail et al. model for predicting individual breast cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst 86(8):20Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Amir E, Evans DG, Shenton A, Lalloo F, Moran A, Boggis C et al (2003) Evaluation of breast cancer risk assessment packages in the family history evaluation and screening programme. J Med Genet 40(11):807–814PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rockhill B, Spiegelman D, Byrne C, Hunter DJ, Colditz GA (2001) Validation of the Gail et al. model of breast cancer risk prediction and implications for chemoprevention. J Natl Cancer Inst 93(5):358–366Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schonfeld SJ, Pee D, Greenlee RT, Hartge P, Lacy JV Jr, Park Y et al (2010) Effect of changing breast cancer incidence rates on the calibration of the Gail model. J Clin Oncol 28(14):2411–2417PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ulusoy C, Kepenekci I, Kose K, Aydintug S, Cam R (2010) Applicability of the gail model for breast cancer risk assessment in turkish female population and evaluation of breastfeeding as a risk factor. Breast Cancer Res Treat 120(2):419–424PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Amir EFreedman (2010) Assessing women at high risk of breast cancer: A review of risk assessment models. J Natl Cancer Inst 102(10):680–691PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Diez Collar MC, Ortega MP, Villanueva OR, Albaladejo VR, Astasio AP, Calle Puron ME et al (2000) Epidemiological characteristics of breast cancer development in pre and postmenopausal women [Spanish]. Med Clin 115(8):281–286Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mallett S, Royston P, Dutton S, Waters R, Altman D (2010) Reporting methods in studies developing prognostic models in cancer: a review. BMC Med 8:20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Mallett S, Royston P, Dutton S, Waters R, Altman D (2010) Reporting performance of prognostic models in cancer: a review. BMC Med 8:21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Janssens AC, Ioannidis J, van Duijn CM, Little J, Khoury MJ et al (2011) Strengthening the Reporting of Genetic Risk Prediction Studies: The GRIPS Statement. PLoS Med 8(3):e1000420PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Collins G. Opening up multivariable prediction models. Accessed September 2011
  44. 44.
    Bleeker SE, Moll HA, Steyerberg EW, Donders AR, Derksen-Lubsen G, Grobbee DE et al (2003) External validation is necessary in prediction research: A clinical example. J Clin Epidemiol 56:826–832PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Steyerberg EW, Mushkudiani N, Perel P, Butcher I, Lu J, McHugh GS et al (2008) Predicting outcome after traumatic brain injury: development and international validation of prognostic scores based on admission characteristics. PLoS Med 5:e165PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Agrawal R, Sharma S, Bekir J, Conway G, Bailey J, Balen AH et al (2004) Prevalence of polycystic ovaries and polycystic ovary syndrome in lesbian women compared with heterosexual women. Fertil Steril 82(5):1352–1357PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Elmore JGF (2006) The risk of cancer risk prediction: “What is my risk of getting breast cancer?”. J Natl Cancer Inst 98(23):06Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Cook NR (2010) Assessing the incremental role of novel and emerging risk factors. Curr Cardiovasc Risk Rep 4:112–119PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Pencina MJ, D’Agostino RBS, D’Agostino RBJ, Vasan RS (2008) Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: from area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond. Stat Med 27:157–172PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Catherine Meads
    • 1
  • Ikhlaaq Ahmed
    • 2
  • Richard D. Riley
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, Barts and The London School of Medicine and DentistryQueen Mary University of LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Unit of Public Health, Epidemiology and BiostatisticsUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK

Personalised recommendations