Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33755692›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Developing and validating an individualized breast cancer risk prediction model for women attending breast cancer screening.

Javier Louro, Marta Román, Margarita Posso, Ivonne Vázquez, Francina Saladié, Ana Rodriguez-Arana, M Jesús Quintana, Laia Domingo, Marisa Baré, Rafael Marcos-Gragera and 4 more

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Long-Term Risk of Breast Cancer after Diagnosis of Benign Breast Disease by Screening Mammography.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

14 authors.

Javier LouroIMIM (Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute), Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-2985-3301
Marta RománIMIM (Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute), Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-9076-8918
Margarita PossoIMIM (Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute), Barcelona, Spain.
Ivonne VázquezServei de Patologia, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain.
Francina SaladiéCancer Epidemiology and Prevention Service, Hospital Universitari Sant Joan de Reus, Institut d'Investigació Sanitària Pere Virgili, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Reus, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-1783-4066
Ana Rodriguez-AranaServei de Diagnòstic per la imatge, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain.
M Jesús QuintanaDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Public Health, University Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, IIB Sant Pau, Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Laia DomingoIMIM (Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute), Barcelona, Spain.
Marisa BaréResearch Network on Health Services in Chronic Diseases (REDISSEC), Barcelona, Spain.
Rafael Marcos-GrageraCIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-9824-3657
María Vernet-TomasServei d'Obstetricia i Ginecologia, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain.
Maria SalaIMIM (Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute), Barcelona, Spain.
Xavier CastellsIMIM (Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute), Barcelona, Spain.
BELE and IRIS Study Groups

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSeveral studies have proposed personalized strategies based on women's individual breast cancer risk to improve the effectiveness of breast cancer screening. We designed and internally validated an individualized risk prediction model for women eligible for mammography screening.

methodsRetrospective cohort study of 121,969 women aged 50 to 69 years, screened at the long-standing population-based screening program in Spain between 1995 and 2015 and followed up until 2017. We used partly conditional Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate the adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) and individual risks for age, family history of breast cancer, previous benign breast disease, and previous mammographic features. We internally validated our model with the expected-to-observed ratio and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve.

resultsDuring a mean follow-up of 7.5 years, 2,058 women were diagnosed with breast cancer. All three risk factors were strongly associated with breast cancer risk, with the highest risk being found among women with family history of breast cancer (aHR: 1.67), a proliferative benign breast disease (aHR: 3.02) and previous calcifications (aHR: 2.52). The model was well calibrated overall (expected-to-observed ratio ranging from 0.99 at 2 years to 1.02 at 20 years) but slightly overestimated the risk in women with proliferative benign breast disease. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve ranged from 58.7% to 64.7%, depending of the time horizon selected.

conclusionsWe developed a risk prediction model to estimate the short- and long-term risk of breast cancer in women eligible for mammography screening using information routinely reported at screening participation. The model could help to guiding individualized screening strategies aimed at improving the risk-benefit balance of mammography screening programs.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerModels, BiologicalRisk AssessmentAgedBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMiddle AgedProportional Hazards ModelsReproducibility of ResultsRisk FactorsROC Curve

Identifiers

PMID33755692
PMCPMC7987139

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.