Skip to main content

The Tyrer–Cuzick Model Inaccurately Predicts Invasive Breast Cancer Risk in Women With LCIS

Abstract

Background

The Tyrer–Cuzick model has been shown to overestimate risk in women with atypical hyperplasia, although its accuracy among women with lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) is unknown. We evaluated the accuracy of the Tyrer–Cuzick model for predicting invasive breast cancer (IBC) development among women with LCIS.

Methods

Women with LCIS participating in surveillance from 1987 to 2017 were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Tyrer–Cuzick score (version 7) was calculated near the time of LCIS diagnosis. Patients with prior or concurrent breast cancer, a BRCA mutation, receiving chemoprevention, or with pleomorphic LCIS were excluded. Invasive cancer-free probability was estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method.

Results

A total of 1192 women with a median follow-up of 6 years (interquartile range [IQR] 2.5–9.9) were included. Median age at LCIS diagnosis was 49 years (IQR 45–55), 88% were white; 37% were postmenopausal, 28% had ≥ 1 first-degree family member with breast cancer, and 13% had ≥ 2 second-degree family members with breast cancer. In total, 128 patients developed an IBC; median age at diagnosis was 54 years (IQR 49–61). Five- and 10-year cumulative incidences of invasive cancer were 8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 6–9%) and 14% (95% CI 12–17%), respectively. The median Tyrer–Cuzick 10-year risk score was 20.1 (IQR 17.4–24.3). Discrimination measured by the C-index was 0.493, confirming that the Tyrer–Cuzick model is not well calibrated in this patient population.

Conclusions

The Tyrer–Cuzick model is not accurate and may overpredict IBC risk for women with LCIS, and therefore should not be used for breast cancer risk assessment in this high-risk population.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. 1.

    Portschy PR, Marmor S, Nzara R, Virnig BA, Tuttle TM. Trends in incidence and management of lobular carcinoma in situ: a population-based analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(10):3240–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    King TA, Pilewskie M, Muhsen S, et al. Lobular carcinoma in situ: a 29-year longitudinal experience evaluating clinicopathologic features and breast cancer risk. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(33):3945–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Anderson H, Bladstrom A, Olsson H, Moller TR. Familial breast and ovarian cancer: a Swedish population-based register study. Am J Epidemiol. 2000;152(12):1154–63.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Tyrer J, Duffy SW, Cuzick J. A breast cancer prediction model incorporating familial and personal risk factors. Stat Med. 2004;23(7):1111–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Amir E, Evans DG, Shenton A, et al. Evaluation of breast cancer risk assessment packages in the family history evaluation and screening programme. J Med Genet. 2003;40(11):807–14.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Boughey JC, Hartmann LC, Anderson SS, et al. Evaluation of the Tyrer–Cuzick (International Breast Cancer Intervention Study) model for breast cancer risk prediction in women with atypical hyperplasia. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(22):3591–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    King TA, Muhsen S, Patil S, et al. Is there a role for routine screening MRI in women with LCIS? Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;142(2):445–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Lo LL, Milne RL, Liao Y, Cuzick J, Terry MB, Phillips KA. Validation of the IBIS breast cancer risk evaluator for women with lobular carcinoma in-situ. Br J Cancer. 2018;119(1):36–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Collins LC, Baer HJ, Tamimi RM, Connolly JL, Colditz GA, Schnitt SJ. The influence of family history on breast cancer risk in women with biopsy-confirmed benign breast disease: results from the Nurses’ Health Study. Cancer. 2006;107(6):1240–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Degnim AC, Visscher DW, Berman HK, et al. Stratification of breast cancer risk in women with atypia: a Mayo cohort study. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(19):2671–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Brentnall AR, Harkness EF, Astley SM, et al. Mammographic density adds accuracy to both the Tyrer–Cuzick and Gail breast cancer risk models in a prospective UK screening cohort. Breast Cancer Res. 2015;17(1):147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Warwick J, Birke H, Stone J, et al. Mammographic breast density refines Tyrer–Cuzick estimates of breast cancer risk in high-risk women: findings from the placebo arm of the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study I. Breast Cancer Res. 2014;16(5):451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

The preparation of this manuscript was funded in part by NIH/NCI Cancer Center Support Grant No. P30 CA008748 to Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, and this study was presented in oral format at the 72nd Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium, San Diego, CA, USA, March 27–30, 2019.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Melissa L. Pilewskie.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Dr. Tari A. King has received honoraria as a speaker for Genomic Health. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to report.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Valero, M.G., Zabor, E.C., Park, A. et al. The Tyrer–Cuzick Model Inaccurately Predicts Invasive Breast Cancer Risk in Women With LCIS. Ann Surg Oncol 27, 736–740 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-019-07814-w

Download citation