Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Breast Cancer Research 1/2021

01-12-2021 | Breast Cancer | Short report

Comparative validation of the BOADICEA and Tyrer-Cuzick breast cancer risk models incorporating classical risk factors and polygenic risk in a population-based prospective cohort of women of European ancestry

Authors: Parichoy Pal Choudhury, Mark N. Brook, Amber N. Hurson, Andrew Lee, Charlotta V. Mulder, Penny Coulson, Minouk J. Schoemaker, Michael E. Jones, Anthony J. Swerdlow, Nilanjan Chatterjee, Antonis C. Antoniou, Montserrat Garcia-Closas

Published in: Breast Cancer Research | Issue 1/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA) and the Tyrer-Cuzick breast cancer risk prediction models are commonly used in clinical practice and have recently been extended to include polygenic risk scores (PRS). In addition, BOADICEA has also been extended to include reproductive and lifestyle factors, which were already part of Tyrer-Cuzick model. We conducted a comparative prospective validation of these models after incorporating the recently developed 313-variant PRS.

Methods

Calibration and discrimination of 5-year absolute risk was assessed in a nested case-control sample of 1337 women of European ancestry (619 incident breast cancer cases) aged 23–75 years from the Generations Study.

Results

The extended BOADICEA model with reproductive/lifestyle factors and PRS was well calibrated across risk deciles; expected-to-observed ratio (E/O) at the highest risk decile :0.97 (95 % CI 0.51 − 1.86) for women younger than 50 years and 1.09 (0.66 − 1.80) for women 50 years or older. Adding reproductive/lifestyle factors and PRS to the BOADICEA model improved discrimination modestly in younger women (area under the curve (AUC) 69.7 % vs. 69.1%) and substantially in older women (AUC 64.6 % vs. 56.8%). The Tyrer-Cuzick model with PRS showed evidence of overestimation at the highest risk decile: E/O = 1.54(0.81 − 2.92) for younger and 1.73 (1.03 − 2.90) for older women.

Conclusion

The extended BOADICEA model identified women in a European-ancestry population at elevated breast cancer risk more accurately than the Tyrer-Cuzick model with PRS. With the increasing availability of PRS, these analyses can inform choice of risk models incorporating PRS for risk stratified breast cancer prevention among women of European ancestry.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
12.
go back to reference Brentnall AR, van Veen EM, Harkness EF, et al. A case-control evaluation of 143 single nucleotide polymorphisms for breast cancer risk stratification with classical factors and mammographic density. Int J Cancer. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.32541. Brentnall AR, van Veen EM, Harkness EF, et al. A case-control evaluation of 143 single nucleotide polymorphisms for breast cancer risk stratification with classical factors and mammographic density. Int J Cancer. 2019. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​ijc.​32541.
Metadata
Title
Comparative validation of the BOADICEA and Tyrer-Cuzick breast cancer risk models incorporating classical risk factors and polygenic risk in a population-based prospective cohort of women of European ancestry
Authors
Parichoy Pal Choudhury
Mark N. Brook
Amber N. Hurson
Andrew Lee
Charlotta V. Mulder
Penny Coulson
Minouk J. Schoemaker
Michael E. Jones
Anthony J. Swerdlow
Nilanjan Chatterjee
Antonis C. Antoniou
Montserrat Garcia-Closas
Publication date
01-12-2021
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Breast Cancer Research / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 1465-542X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-021-01399-7

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Breast Cancer Research 1/2021 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine