ArticleBritish journal of cancer2026
Breast cancer risk prediction with a modified BOADICEA model in Danish women.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Risk-based breast cancer screening.British journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Risk-based breast cancer screening.British journal of cancer · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
24 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBreast cancer risk prediction approaches clinical practice. The BOADICEA risk model has been updated to consider common breast cancer risk variants, lifestyle/hormonal risk factors and mammographic density (MD).
methods49,494 women from the Danish Blood Donor Study were followed for up to 10 years. Modified BOADICEA risks within 5 and 10 years were calculated based on a polygenic breast cancer risk score combined with lifestyle/hormonal risk factors. MD was only known for 4608 women. Calibration was assessed by comparing observed and predicted risks. AUC and Harrell's concordance index (C-index) were used to assess discriminative ability and sensitivities and specificities were obtained for high and low-risk groups.
resultsWithin 5 and 10 years, 367 and 617 women had breast cancer. The 5-year model achieved an AUC of 0.80 (95% CI:0.78-0.81), sensitivity of 0.34 and specificity of 0.92 for all and an AUC of 0.61 (95% CI:0.58-0.65) for the 50-69-year-aged. For this age-group, the sensitivity was 0.46 in the 10-year model. 50% of women with the highest 5-year risk predictions, identified 94.8% of those with incident breast cancers.
conclusionThe modified BOADICEA risk model provided valid risks among a large retrospective cohort of Danish 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.