Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31556450›Full record

ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2020

Performance of Breast Cancer Risk-Assessment Models in a Large Mammography Cohort.

Anne Marie McCarthy, Zoe Guan, Michaela Welch, Molly E Griffin, Dorothy A Sippo, Zhengyi Deng, Suzanne B Coopey, Ahmet Acar, Alan Semine, Giovanni Parmigiani and 2 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
7.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

57 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 103 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Personalizing cancer risk: a systematic review of risk communication strategies.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2026
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Anne Marie McCarthyDepartment of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA.
Zoe GuanDepartment of Biostatistics, Harvard University T H Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA.
Michaela WelchDivision of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA.
Molly E GriffinDivision of Surgical Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA.
Dorothy A SippoDepartment of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA.
Zhengyi DengDivision of Surgical Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA.
Suzanne B CoopeyDivision of Surgical Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA.
Ahmet AcarIstanbul School of Medicine, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Alan SemineDepartment of Radiology, Newton-Wellesley Hospital, Newton, MA.
Giovanni ParmigianiDepartment of Biostatistics, Harvard University T H Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA.
Danielle BraunDepartment of Biostatistics, Harvard University T H Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA.
Kevin S HughesDivision of Surgical Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA.
Massachusetts General Hospital · USHarvard University · USIstanbul University · TRNewton Wellesley Hospital · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · US

Funding

VectorP30CA006516 · NCI · DANA-FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE · PI JENNIFER W MACK · 1985 to 2026
$330.6M
Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (U Component)UL1TR001863 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John H. Krystal, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 2016 to 2026
$102.9M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001863NCI NIH HHS P30 CA006516
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSeveral breast cancer risk-assessment models exist. Few studies have evaluated predictive accuracy of multiple models in large screening populations.

methodsWe evaluated the performance of the BRCAPRO, Gail, Claus, Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC), and Tyrer-Cuzick models in predicting risk of breast cancer over 6 years among 35 921 women aged 40-84 years who underwent mammography screening at Newton-Wellesley Hospital from 2007 to 2009. We assessed model discrimination using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and assessed calibration by comparing the ratio of observed-to-expected (O/E) cases. We calculated the square root of the Brier score and positive and negative predictive values of each model.

resultsOur results confirmed the good calibration and comparable moderate discrimination of the BRCAPRO, Gail, Tyrer-Cuzick, and BCSC models. The Gail model had slightly better O/E ratio and AUC (O/E = 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.91 to 1.06, AUC = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.61 to 0.65) compared with BRCAPRO (O/E = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.88 to 1.02, AUC = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.59 to 0.63) and Tyrer-Cuzick (version 8, O/E = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.79 to 0.91, AUC = 0.62, 95% 0.60 to 0.64) in the full study population, and the BCSC model had the highest AUC among women with available breast density information (O/E = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.89 to 1.05, AUC = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.62 to 0.66). All models had poorer predictive accuracy for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive and triple-negative breast cancers than hormone receptor positive human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative breast cancers.

conclusionsIn a large cohort of patients undergoing mammography screening, existing risk prediction models had similar, moderate predictive accuracy and good calibration overall. Models that incorporate additional genetic and nongenetic risk factors and estimate risk of tumor subtypes may further improve breast cancer risk prediction.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overBreast NeoplasmsCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMammographyMassachusettsMiddle AgedModels, StatisticalRegistriesRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID31556450
PMCPMC7225681
OpenAlexW2976284963

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.