Statistics in Biosciences

, Volume 5, Issue 2, pp 303–315 | Cite as

Applications of Personalized Estimates of Absolute Breast Cancer Risk

Article

Abstract

Absolute risk is the probability that a given health outcome will be observed in a defined time period in the presence of competing causes of death. In this commentary I discuss some applications of models of absolute breast cancer risk that account for a woman’s particular risk factors. Such models can be useful in counseling by giving perspective on the level of risk, and as an aid to weighing risks and benefits, as in deciding whether or not to take tamoxifen to prevent breast cancer. Absolute risk models also have applications in public health, such as in designing intervention trials to prevent breast cancer and in assessing the potential reductions in absolute risk of disease that might result from reducing exposures. Other potential public health applications that require models with high discriminatory accuracy are to identify “high risk” subsets of the population that might benefit from a preventive intervention or screening, or to rank members of the population on risk to allocate preventive resources under cost constraints.

Keywords

Absolute risk Breast cancer Crude risk Cumulative incidence Disease prevention Risk versus benefit 

References

  1. 1.
    Gail MH (2011) Personalized estimates of breast cancer risk in clinical practice and public health. Stat Med 30:1090–1104 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Prentice RL, Breslow NE (1978) Retrospective studies and failure time models. Biometrika 65:153–158 CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Prentice RL, Pyke R (1979) Logistic disease incidence models and case-control studies. Biometrika 66:403–411 MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Prentice RL, Kalbfleisch JD, Peterson AV, Flournoy N, Farewell VT, Breslow NE (1978) Analysis of failure times in presence of competing risks. Biometrics 34:541–554 CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wilson PWF, D’Agostino RB, Levy D, Belanger AM, Silbershatz H, Kannel WB (1998) Prediction of coronary heart disease using risk factor categories. Circulation 97:1837–1847 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gaynor JJ, Feuer EJ, Tan CC, Wu DH, Little CR, Straus DJ, Clarkson BD, Brennan MF (1993) On the use of cause-specific failure and conditional failure probabilities—examples from clinical oncology data. J Am Stat Assoc 88:400–409 CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Langholz B, Borgan O (1997) Estimation of absolute risk from nested case-control data. Biometrics 53:767–774 CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Self SG, Prentice RL (1988) Asymptotic-distribution theory and efficiency results for case cohort studies. Ann Stat 16:64–81 MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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 99:1782–1792 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fine JP, Gray RJ (1999) A proportional hazards model for the subdistribution of a competing risk. J Am Stat Assoc 94:496–509 MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Amir E, Freedman OC, Seruga B, Evans DG (2010) Assessing women at high risk of breast cancer: a review of risk assessment models. J Natl Cancer Inst 102:680–691 CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gail MH, Mai PL (2010) Comparing breast cancer risk assessment models. J Natl Cancer Inst 102:665–688 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gail MH, Pfeiffer RM (2005) On criteria for evaluating models of absolute risk. Biostatistics 6:227–239 CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pepe MS, Feng Z, Huang Y, Longton G, Prentice R, Thompson IM, Zheng Y (2008) Integrating the predictiveness of a marker with its performance as a classifier. Am J Epidemiol 167:362–368 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gail MH (2009) Value of adding single-nucleotide polymorphism genotypes to a breast cancer risk model. J Natl Cancer Inst 101:959–963 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pfeiffer RM, Gail MH (2011) Two criteria for evaluating risk prediction models. Biometrics 67:1057–1065 MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hosmer DW, Hosmer T, leCessie S, Lemeshow S (1997) A comparison of goodness-of-fit tests for the logistic regression model. Stat Med 16:965–980 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Truett J, Cornfiel J, Kannel W (1967) A multivariate analysis of risk of coronary heart disease in Framingham. J Chronic Dis 20:511–524 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pfeiffer RM, Gail MH (2011) Two criteria for evaluating risk prediction models. Biometrics 67:1057–1065 MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gail MH (2008) Discriminatory accuracy from single-nucleotide polymorphisms in models to predict breast cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst 100:1037–1041 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Park J-H, Gail MH, Greene MH, Chatterjee N (2012) Potential usefulness of single nucleotide polymorphisms to identify persons at high cancer risk: an evaluation of seven common cancers. J Clin Oncol 30:2157–2162. doi:10.1200/JCO.2011.40.1943 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pharoah PDP, Antoniou A, Bobrow M, Zimmern RL, Easton DF, Ponder BAJ (2002) Polygenic susceptibility to breast cancer and implications for prevention. Nat Genet 31:33–36 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Calonge N, Petitti DB, DeWitt TG, Dietrich AJ, Gregory KD, Grossman D, Isham G, LeFevre ML, Leipzig RM, Marion LN, Melnyk B, Moyer VA, Ockene JK, Sawaya GF, Schwartz JS, Wilt T (2009) T screening for breast cancer: US preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 151:716–726 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gail M, Rimer B (1999) Risk-based recommendations for mammographic screening for women in their forties (vol 16, pg 3105, 1998). J Clin Oncol 17:740. Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gail MH, Schairer C (2010) Comments and response on the USPSTF recommendation on screening for breast cancer. Ann Intern Med 152:540 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    van Ravesteyn NT, Miglioretti DL, Stout NK, Lee SJ, Schechter CB, Buist DS, Huang H, Heijnsdijk EA, Trentham-Dietz A, Alagoz O, Near AM, Kerlikowske K, Nelson HD, Mandelblatt JS, de Koning HJ (2012) Tipping the balance of benefits and harms to favor screening mammography starting at age 40 years: a comparative modeling study of risk. Ann Intern Med 156:609–617 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gail MH, Costantino JP, Bryant J, Croyle R, Freedman L, Helzlsouer K, Vogel V (1999) Weighing the risks and benefits of tamoxifen treatment for preventing breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 91:1829–1846 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fisher B, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, Redmond CK, Kavanah M, Cronin WM, Vogel V, Robidoux A, Dimitrov N, Atkins J, Daly M, Wieand S, Tan-Chiu E, Ford L, Wolmark N (1998) Tamoxifen for prevention of breast cancer: report of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 study. J Natl Cancer Inst 90:1371–1388 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Vogel VG, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, Cronin WM, Cecchini RS, Atkins JN, Bevers TB, Fehrenbacher L, Pajon ER, Wade JL, Robidoux A, Margolese RG, James J, Lippman SM, Runowicz CD, Ganz PA, Reis SE, McCaskill-Stevens W, Ford LG, Jordan VC, Wolmark N (2006) Effects of tamoxifen vs raloxifene on the risk of developing invasive breast cancer and other disease outcomes—the NSABP study of tamoxifen and raloxifene (STAR) p-2 trial. JAMA J Am Med Assoc 295:2727–2741 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Petracci E, Decarli A, Schairer C, Pfeiffer RM, Pee D, Masala G, Palli D, Gail MH (2011) Risk factor modification and projections of absolute breast cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst 103:1037–1048 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rose GA (1992) The strategy of preventive medicine. Oxford University Press, Oxford Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chen JB, Pee D, Ayyagari R, Graubard B, Schairer C, Byrne C, Benichou J, Gail MH (2006) Projecting absolute invasive breast cancer risk in white women with a model that includes mammographic density. J Natl Cancer Inst 98:1215–1226 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gail MH (2012) Using multiple risk models with preventive interventions. Stat Med 31:2687–2696. doi:10.1002/sim.5443 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gail MH (2009) Applying the Lorenz curve to disease risk to optimize health benefits under cost constraints. Stat Interface 2:117–121 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Biostatistics Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and GeneticsNational Cancer InstituteBethedsaUSA

Personalised recommendations