ArticleScientific reports2018
Validating a breast cancer score in Spanish women. The MCC-Spain study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Understanding the contribution of lifestyle in breast cancer risk prediction: a systematic review of models applicable to Europe.BMC cancer · 2023Pooled it
- Alcohol consumption and breast lesions: targets for risk-based screening in high-risk Italian women.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2025Article
- The association of female reproductive factors with history of cardiovascular disease: a large cross-sectional study.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Cancer-specific risk prediction with a serum microRNA signature.Cancer science · 2024Article
- Race and Genetics: Somber History, Troubled Present.The Yale journal of biology and medicine · 2020Review
- Individual and joint performance of DNA methylation profiles, genetic risk score and environmental risk scores for predicting breast cancer risk.Molecular oncology · 2020Article
- Cohort profile: the MCC-Spain follow-up on colorectal, breast and prostate cancers: study design and initial results.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
25 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A breast-risk score, published in 2016, was developed in white-American women using 92 genetic variants (GRS92), modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors. With the aim of validating the score in the Spanish population, 1,732 breast cancer cases and 1,910 controls were studied. The GRS92, modifiable and non-modifiable risk factor scores were estimated via logistic regression. SNPs without available genotyping were simulated as in the aforementioned 2016 study. The full model score was obtained by combining GRS92, modifiable and non-modifiable risk factor scores. Score performances were tested via the area under the ROC curve (AUROC), net reclassification index (NRI) and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI). Compared with non-modifiable and modifiable factor scores, GRS92 had higher discrimination power (AUROC: 0.6195, 0.5885 and 0.5214, respectively). Adding the non-modifiable factor score to GRS92 improved patient classification by 23.6% (NRI = 0.236), while the modifiable factor score only improved it by 7.2%. The full model AUROC reached 0.6244. A simulation study showed the ability of the full model for identifying women at high risk for breast cancer. In conclusion, a model combining genetic and risk factors can be used for stratifying women by their breast cancer risk, which can be applied to individualizing genetic counseling and screening recommendations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.