Extensions of the Rosner-Colditz breast cancer prediction model to include older women and type-specific predicted risk
A breast cancer risk prediction rule previously developed by Rosner and Colditz has reasonable predictive ability. We developed a re-fitted version of this model, based on more than twice as many cases now including women up to age 85, and further extended it to a model that distinguished risk factor prediction of tumors with different estrogen/progesterone receptor status.
We compared the calibration and discriminatory ability of the original, the re-fitted, and the type-specific models. Evaluation used data from the Nurses’ Health Study during the period 1980–2008, when 4384 incident invasive breast cancers occurred over 1.5 million person-years. Model development used two-thirds of study subjects and validation used one-third.
Predicted risks in the validation sample from the original and re-fitted models were highly correlated (ρ = 0.93), but several parameters, notably those related to use of menopausal hormone therapy and age, had different estimates. The re-fitted model was well-calibrated and had an overall C-statistic of 0.65. The extended, type-specific model identified several risk factors with varying associations with occurrence of tumors of different receptor status. However, this extended model relative to the prediction of any breast cancer did not meaningfully reclassify women who developed breast cancer to higher risk categories, nor women remaining cancer free to lower risk categories.
The re-fitted Rosner-Colditz model has applicability to risk prediction in women up to age 85, and its discrimination is not improved by consideration of varying associations across tumor subtypes.
KeywordsPrediction Models, statistical Calibration Discrimination Reclassification
This project was funded by a cohort infrastructure Grant (UM1 CA186107), and a program project Grant (P01 CA87969) from the National Cancer Institute.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 3.Gail MH, Costantino JP, Pee D, Bondy M, Newman L, Selvan M, Anderson GL, Malone KE, Marchbanks PA, McCaskill-Stevens W, Norman SA, Simon MS, Spirtas R, Ursin G, Bernstein L (2007) Projecting individualized absolute invasive breast cancer risk in African American women. J Natl Cancer Inst 99(23):1782–1792CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 5.Division of cancer epidemiology and genetics. Breast cancer risk assessment macro BrCa_RAM.sas. Downloaded from http://dceg.cancer.gov/tools/risk-assessment/bcrasasmacro
- 13.Barlow WE, White E, Ballard-Barbash R, Vacek PM, Titus-Ernstoff L, Carney PA, Tice JA, Buist DS, Geller BM, Rosenberg R, Yankaskas BC, Kerlikowske K (2006) Prospective breast cancer risk prediction model for women undergoing screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 98:1204–1214CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 19.Visvanathan K, Hurley P, Bantug E, Brown P, Col NF, Cuzick J, Davidson NE, Decensi A, Fabian C, Ford L, Garber J, Katapodi M, Kramer B, Morrow M, Parker B, Runowicz C, Vogel VG 3rd, Wade JL, Lippman SM (2013) Breast cancer follow-up and management after primary treatment: American Society of clinical oncology clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol 31:2942–2962CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 29.Vachon CM, Pankratz VS, Scott CG, Haeberle L, Ziv E, Jensen MR, Brandt KR, Whaley DH, Olson JE, Heusinger K, Hack CC, Jud SM, Beckmann MW, Schulz-Wendtland R, Tice JA, Norman AD, Cunningham JM, Purrington KS, Easton DF, Sellers TA, Kerlikowske K, Fasching PA, Couch FJ (2015) The contributions of breast density and common genetic variation to breast cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst. doi: 10.1093/jnci/dju397 Google Scholar