National Center for Epidemiology, Carlos III Institute of Health, Monforte de Lemos 5, 28029 Madrid, Spain.
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013 Feb;138(1):249-59. doi: 10.1007/s10549-013-2428-y. Epub 2013 Feb 3.
The Gail model for predicting the absolute risk of invasive breast cancer has been validated extensively in US populations, but its performance in the international setting remains uncertain. We evaluated the predictive accuracy of the Gail model in 54,649 Spanish women aged 45-68 years who were free of breast cancer at the 1996-1998 baseline mammographic examination in the population-based Navarre Breast Cancer Screening Program. Incident cases of invasive breast cancer and competing deaths were ascertained until the end of 2005 (average follow-up of 7.7 years) through linkage with population-based cancer and mortality registries. The Gail model was tested for calibration and discrimination in its original form and after recalibration to the lower breast cancer incidence and risk factor prevalence in the study cohort, and compared through cross-validation with a Navarre model fully developed from this cohort. The original Gail model overpredicted significantly the 835 cases of invasive breast cancer observed in the cohort (ratio of expected to observed cases 1.46, 95 % CI 1.36-1.56). The recalibrated Gail model was well calibrated overall (expected-to-observed ratio 1.00, 95 % CI 0.94-1.07), but it tended to underestimate risk for women in low-risk quintiles and to overestimate risk in high-risk quintiles (P = 0.01). The Navarre model showed good cross-validated calibration overall (expected-to-observed ratio 0.98, 95 % CI 0.92-1.05) and in different cohort subsets. The Navarre and Gail models had modest cross-validated discrimination indexes of 0.542 (95 % CI 0.521-0.564) and 0.544 (95 % CI 0.523-0.565), respectively. Although the original Gail model cannot be applied directly to populations with different underlying rates of invasive breast cancer, it can readily be recalibrated to provide unbiased estimates of absolute risk in such populations. Nevertheless, its limited discrimination ability at the individual level highlights the need to develop extended models with additional strong risk factors.
加氏模型预测浸润性乳腺癌的绝对风险已在美国人群中得到广泛验证,但在国际环境中的性能仍不确定。我们评估了加氏模型在 54649 名年龄在 45-68 岁之间的西班牙妇女中的预测准确性,这些妇女在 1996-1998 年基于人群的纳瓦拉乳腺癌筛查计划的基线乳房 X 光检查中无乳腺癌。通过与基于人群的癌症和死亡率登记处的链接,确定浸润性乳腺癌的发病病例和竞争死亡病例,直至 2005 年底(平均随访 7.7 年)。加氏模型在其原始形式以及根据研究队列中较低的乳腺癌发病率和风险因素流行率进行重新校准后,分别进行了校准和区分能力的测试,并通过与完全由该队列开发的纳瓦拉模型进行交叉验证进行了比较。原始的 Gail 模型显著高估了队列中观察到的 835 例浸润性乳腺癌病例(预期病例与观察病例的比值为 1.46,95%CI1.36-1.56)。重新校准的 Gail 模型总体上具有良好的校准(预期-观察比值为 1.00,95%CI0.94-1.07),但倾向于低估低风险五分位数的风险,高估高风险五分位数的风险(P=0.01)。纳瓦拉模型总体上具有良好的交叉验证校准(预期-观察比值为 0.98,95%CI0.92-1.05),并且在不同的队列子集中也是如此。纳瓦拉和加氏模型的交叉验证区分指数分别为 0.542(95%CI0.521-0.564)和 0.544(95%CI0.523-0.565)。虽然原始的 Gail 模型不能直接应用于浸润性乳腺癌基础发病率不同的人群,但它可以很容易地重新校准,以提供此类人群中绝对风险的无偏估计。然而,其在个体水平上的有限区分能力突出了需要开发具有额外强风险因素的扩展模型。