ArticleCancer causes & control : CCC2020
Validation of two US breast cancer risk prediction models in German women.
Article in Cancer causes & control : CCC, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Development and performance of female breast cancer incidence risk prediction models: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tools for Stratifying Women into Risk Groups: A Systematic Review.Cancers · 2023Review
- Estimating the Breast Cancer Burden in Germany and Implications for Risk-based Screening.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2021Article
- The accuracy of breast cancer risk self-assessment does not correlate with knowledge about breast cancer and knowledge and attitudes towards primary chemoprevention.Preventive medicine reports · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThere are no models for German women that predict absolute risk of invasive breast cancer (BC), i.e., the probability of developing BC over a prespecified time period, given a woman's age and characteristics, while accounting for competing risks. We thus validated two absolute BC risk models (BCRAT, BCRmod) developed for US women in German women. BCRAT uses a woman's medical, reproductive, and BC family history; BCRmod adds modifiable risk factors (body mass index, hormone replacement therapy and alcohol use).
methodsWe assessed model calibration by comparing observed BC numbers (O) to expected numbers (E) computed from BCRmod/BCRAT for German women enrolled in the prospective European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC), and after updating the models with German BC incidence/competing mortality rates. We also compared 1-year BC risk predicted for all German women using the German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Adults (DEGS) with overall German BC incidence. Discriminatory performance was quantified by the area under the receiver operator characteristics curve (AUC).
resultsAmong 22,098 EPIC-Germany women aged 40+ years, 745 BCs occurred (median follow-up: 11.9 years). Both models had good calibration for total follow-up, E
conclusionUS BC risk models showed adequate calibration in German women. Discriminatory performance was comparable to that in US women. These models thus could be applied for risk prediction in German women.
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.