PuSH - Publikationsserver des Helmholtz Zentrums München: Practical problems with clinical guidelines for breast cancer prevention based on remaining lifetime risk.

Informationen

Hinweise zu Qualitätskriterien von Zeitschriften

Open-Access-Richtlinie der Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft 2016

CC Licencences

Metriken für Publikationen

Navigation

Startseite

English

EVA: Veröffentlichen

Neuer EVA Antrag

Recherche

Erweiterte Suche

Durchblättern nach ...

... HMGU-Autoren/Konsortien

... Organisationsstruktur

... Zeitschriften

... Publikationstypen

... Forschungsdaten

... Arbeitsgruppen

... Erscheinungsjahr

Publikationen im Überblick

Statistik

HGF Fortschrittsbericht

OA Publikationen

Eintragen

Neue Publikation eintragen

Neue Publikation holen aus...

...EVA

Fehlende Publikation melden

Highlights

Suche

Hilfe & Kontakt

Ansprechpartner

Hilfe

Datenschutz

Helmholtz Open Science

Bibliometrische Indikatoren

SHERPA/RoMEO

DOAJ

Export:

Text

Endnote (RIS) BIB

BibTeX

Quante, A.S. ; Whittemore, A.S.* ; Shriver, T.* ; Hopper, J.L.* ; Strauch, K. ; Terry, M.B.*

Practical problems with clinical guidelines for breast cancer prevention based on remaining lifetime risk.

J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 107:djv124 (2015)

Verlagsversion

DOI

PMC

	Closed

Open Access Green möglich sobald Postprint bei der ZB eingereicht worden ist.

Abstract
Metriken
Zusatzinfos

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines for breast cancer chemoprevention and MRI screening involve estimates of remaining lifetime risk (RLR); in the United States, women with an RLR of 20% or higher meet "high-risk" criteria for MRI screening. METHODS: We prospectively followed 1764 women without breast cancer to compare the RLRs and 10-year risks assigned by the risk models International Breast Cancer Intervention Study (IBIS) and Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA) and to compare both sets of model-assigned 10-year risks to subsequent incidence of breast cancer in the cohort. We used chi-square statistics to assess calibration and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) to assess discrimination. All statistical tests are two-sided. RESULTS: The models classified different proportions of women as high-risk (IBIS = 59.3% vs BOADICEA = 20.1%) using the RLR threshold of 20%. The difference was smaller (IBIS = 52.9% vs BOADICEA = 43.2%) using a 10-year risk threshold of 3.34%. IBIS risks (mean = 4.9%) were better calibrated to observed breast cancer incidence (5.2%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 4.2% to 6.4%) than were those of BOADICEA (mean = 3.7%) overall and within quartiles of model risk (P = .20 by IBIS and P = .07 by BOADICEA). Both models gave similar discrimination, with AUCs of 0.67 (95% CI = 0.61 to 0.73) using IBIS and 0.68 (95% CI = 0.62 to 0.74) using BOADICEA. Model sensitivities at thresholds for a 20% false-positive rate were also similar, with 41.8% using IBIS and 38.0% using BOADICEA. CONCLUSION: RLR-based guidelines for high-risk women are limited by discordance between commonly used risk models. Guidelines based on short-term risks would be more useful, as models are generally developed and validated under a short fixed time horizon (≤10 years).

Impact Factor

Scopus SNIP

Web of Science
Times Cited

Scopus
Cited By

Altmetric

12.583

3.782