Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27565998›Full record

ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2016

Breast cancer risk prediction using a clinical risk model and polygenic risk score.

Yiwey Shieh, Donglei Hu, Lin Ma, Scott Huntsman, Charlotte C Gard, Jessica W T Leung, Jeffrey A Tice, Celine M Vachon, Steven R Cummings, Karla Kerlikowske and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 99 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
99citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

99 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Genetic Risk Scores for the Clinical Rheumatologist.Journal of clinical rheumatology : practical reports on rheumatic & musculoskeletal diseases · 2025
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

39 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Yiwey ShiehDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, Box 0320, 1545 Divisadero Street, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA. yiwey.shieh@ucsf.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0159-7748
Donglei HuDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, Box 0320, 1545 Divisadero Street, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA.
Lin MaUniversity of California, San Francisco, Box 1793, 550 16th Street, San Francisco, CA, 94158, USA.
Scott HuntsmanDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, Box 0320, 1545 Divisadero Street, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA.
Charlotte C GardDepartment of Economics, Applied Statistics, and International Business, New Mexico State University, MSC 3CQ, P.O. Box 30001, Las Cruces, NM, 88003, USA.
Jessica W T LeungDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Unit 1350, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Jeffrey A TiceDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, Box 0320, 1545 Divisadero Street, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA.
Celine M VachonDepartment of Health Sciences Research, Division of Epidemiology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Charlton Building 6-239, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Steven R CummingsSan Francisco Coordinating Center, California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute, Box 0560, 550 16th Street, 2nd Floor, San Francisco, CA, 94159, USA.
Karla KerlikowskeDepartments of Medicine and Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, USA.
Elad ZivDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, Box 0320, 1545 Divisadero Street, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA.

Funding

Risk-based Imaging Strategies to Improve Breast Cancer Surveillance OutcomesP01CA154292 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI Diana L Miglioretti · 2011 to 2026
$52.9M
Germline and Tumor Genomic Analyses of Breast Cancer in LatinasR01CA184585 · NCI · BECKMAN RESEARCH INSTITUTE/CITY OF HOPE · PI NEUHAUSEN, SUSAN L., ZIV, ELAD · 2014 to 2018
$4.2M
Genetics of mammographic density and breast cancer risk in LatinasK24CA169004 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI ZIV, ELAD · 2012 to 2021
$1.8M
NCI NIH HHS HHSN261201100031CNCI NIH HHS K24 CA169004NCI NIH HHS P01 CA154292NCI NIH HHS R01 CA184585
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Breast cancer risk assessment can inform the use of screening and prevention modalities. We investigated the performance of the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) risk model in combination with a polygenic risk score (PRS) comprised of 83 single nucleotide polymorphisms identified from genome-wide association studies. We conducted a nested case-control study of 486 cases and 495 matched controls within a screening cohort. The PRS was calculated using a Bayesian approach. The contributions of the PRS and variables in the BCSC model to breast cancer risk were tested using conditional logistic regression. Discriminatory accuracy of the models was compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Increasing quartiles of the PRS were positively associated with breast cancer risk, with OR 2.54 (95 % CI 1.69-3.82) for breast cancer in the highest versus lowest quartile. In a multivariable model, the PRS, family history, and breast density remained strong risk factors. The AUROC of the PRS was 0.60 (95 % CI 0.57-0.64), and an Asian-specific PRS had AUROC 0.64 (95 % CI 0.53-0.74). A combined model including the BCSC risk factors and PRS had better discrimination than the BCSC model (AUROC 0.65 versus 0.62, p = 0.01). The BCSC-PRS model classified 18 % of cases as high-risk (5-year risk ≥3 %), compared with 7 % using the BCSC model. The PRS improved discrimination of the BCSC risk model and classified more cases as high-risk. Further consideration of the PRS's role in decision-making around screening and prevention strategies is merited.

Indexed as

Genetic Predisposition to DiseasePolymorphism, Single NucleotideAdultAgedAged, 80 and overArea Under CurveBayes TheoremBreast NeoplasmsCase-Control StudiesFemaleGenome-Wide Association StudyHumansLogistic ModelsMiddle AgedMultifactorial InheritanceRisk AssessmentBreast cancerCancer surveillance and screeningRisk assessmentSingle nucleotide polymorphisms

Identifiers

PMID27565998
PMCPMC5033764

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.