ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2021
Comparing 5-Year and Lifetime Risks of Breast Cancer using the Prospective Family Study Cohort.
Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the performance of the Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence Algorithm model in predicting 10-year breast cancer risks in UK Biobank.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2025Article
- Validation of a Genetic-Enhanced Risk Prediction Model for Colorectal Cancer in a Large Community-Based Cohort.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2023Article
- Deep Learning vs Traditional Breast Cancer Risk Models to Support Risk-Based Mammography Screening.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2022Article
- Breast cancer risk predictions by birth cohort and ethnicity in a population-based screening mammography program.The British journal of radiology · 2022Article
- Cumulative Advanced Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Model Developed in a Screening Mammography Population.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2022Article
- Article
- Recreational Physical Activity and Outcomes After Breast Cancer in Women at High Familial Risk.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2021Article
- Article
- Should Age-Dependent Absolute Risk Thresholds Be Used for Risk Stratification in Risk-Stratified Breast Cancer Screening?Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Article
- Role of Routine Peritoneal Biopsies During Risk Reducing Salpingo-Oophorectomy (RRSO).Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde · 2021Article
- Understanding the Clinical Implications of Low Penetrant Genes and Breast Cancer Risk.Current treatment options in oncology · 2021Review
- Identifying Preferred Breast Cancer Risk Predictors: A Holistic Perspective.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClinical guidelines often use predicted lifetime risk from birth to define criteria for making decisions regarding breast cancer screening rather than thresholds based on absolute 5-year risk from current age.
methodsWe used the Prospective Family Cohort Study of 14 657 women without breast cancer at baseline in which, during a median follow-up of 10 years, 482 women were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer. We examined the performances of the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study (IBIS) and Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA) risk models when using the alternative thresholds by comparing predictions based on 5-year risk with those based on lifetime risk from birth and remaining lifetime risk. All statistical tests were 2-sided.
resultsUsing IBIS, the areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curves were 0.66 (95% confidence interval = 0.63 to 0.68) and 0.56 (95% confidence interval = 0.54 to 0.59) for 5-year and lifetime risks, respectively (Pdiff < .001). For equivalent sensitivities, the 5-year incidence almost always had higher specificities than lifetime risk from birth. For women aged 20-39 years, 5-year risk performed better than lifetime risk from birth. For women aged 40 years or older, receiver-operating characteristic curves were similar for 5-year and lifetime IBIS risk from birth. Classifications based on remaining lifetime risk were inferior to 5-year risk estimates. Results were similar using BOADICEA.
conclusionsOur analysis shows that risk stratification using clinical models will likely be more accurate when based on predicted 5-year risk compared with risks based on predicted lifetime and remaining lifetime, particularly for women aged 20-39 years.
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.