Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32245787›Full record

ArticleCancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology2020

Validating Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Models in the Korean Cancer Prevention Study-II Biobank.

Yon Ho Jee, Chi Gao, Jihye Kim, Seho Park, Sun Ha Jee, Peter Kraft

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Development of a Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Model Incorporating Polygenic Risk Scores and Nongenetic Risk Factors for Korean Women.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
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

6 authors.

Yon Ho JeeDepartment of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Chi GaoDepartment of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Jihye KimDepartment of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.ORCID 0000-0001-7096-820X
Seho ParkDivision of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-8089-2755
Sun Ha JeeDepartment of Epidemiology and Health Promotion, Institute for Health Promotion, Graduate School of Public Health, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea. jsunha@yuhs.ac.
Peter KraftDepartment of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.

Funding

Multifactoral breast cancer risk prediction accounting for ethnic and tumor diversityU01CA249866 · NCI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI CHATTERJEE, NILANJAN · 2020 to 2023
$2.3M
NCI NIH HHS U01 CA249866
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRisk prediction models may be useful for precision breast cancer screening. We aimed to evaluate the performance of breast cancer risk models developed in European-ancestry studies in a Korean population.

methodsWe compared discrimination and calibration of three multivariable risk models in a cohort of 77,457 women from the Korean Cancer Prevention Study (KCPS)-II. The first incorporated U.S. breast cancer incidence and mortality rates, U.S. risk factor distributions, and RR estimates from European-ancestry studies. The second recalibrated the first by using Korean incidence and mortality rates and Korean risk factor distributions, while retaining the European-ancestry RR estimates. Finally, we derived a Korea-specific model incorporating the RR estimates from KCPS.

resultsThe U.S. European-ancestry breast cancer risk model was well calibrated among Korean women <50 years [expected/observed = 1.124 (0.989, 1.278)] but markedly overestimated the risk for those ≥50 years [E/O = 2.472 (2.005, 3.049)]. Recalibrating absolute risk estimates using Korean breast cancer rates and risk distributions markedly improved the calibration in women ≥50 [E/O = 1.018 (0.825, 1.255)]. The model incorporating Korean-based RRs had similar but not clearly improved performance relative to the recalibrated model.

conclusionsThe poor performance of the U.S. European-ancestry breast cancer risk model among older Korean women highlights the importance of tailoring absolute risk models to specific populations. Recalibrating the model using Korean incidence and mortality rates and risk factor distributions greatly improved performance. IMPACT: The data will provide valuable information to plan and evaluate actions against breast cancer focused on primary prevention and early detection in Korean women.

Indexed as

Biological Specimen BanksBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansRepublic of KoreaRisk FactorsValidation Studies as Topic

Identifiers

PMID32245787
PMCPMC12186873

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.