Vachon Celine M, Pankratz V Shane, Scott Christopher G, Haeberle Lothar, Ziv Elad, Jensen Matthew R, Brandt Kathleen R, Whaley Dana H, Olson Janet E, Heusinger Katharina, Hack Carolin C, Jud Sebastian M, Beckmann Matthias W, Schulz-Wendtland Ruediger, Tice Jeffrey A, Norman Aaron D, Cunningham Julie M, Purrington Kristen S, Easton Douglas F, Sellers Thomas A, Kerlikowske Karla, Fasching Peter A, Couch Fergus J
Affiliations of authors: Department of Health Sciences Research, Division of Epidemiology, Mayo Clinic (CMV, VSP, CGS, MRJ, JEO, ADN, FJC); Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Erlangen Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Erlangen, Germany (LH, KH, CCH, SMJ, MWB, PAF); Department of Medicine, Institute for Human Genetics, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, CA (EZ); Departments of Medicine and Epidemiology and Biostatistics and General Internal Medicine Section, Department of Veterans Affairs and Division of General Internal Medicine (EZ, JAT, KK); Division of Breast Imaging, Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN (KRB, DHW); Institute of Diagnostic Radiology, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany (RS-W); Division of Experimental Pathology, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN (JMC, FJC); Wayne State University School of Medicine and Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI (KSP); University of Cambridge, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Cambridge, UK (DFE); Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida (TAS); University of California at Los Angeles, Department of Medicine, Division Hematology/Oncology, David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA (PAF).
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015 Mar 4;107(5). doi: 10.1093/jnci/dju397. Print 2015 May.
We evaluated whether a 76-locus polygenic risk score (PRS) and Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) breast density were independent risk factors within three studies (1643 case patients, 2397 control patients) using logistic regression models. We incorporated the PRS odds ratio (OR) into the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) risk-prediction model while accounting for its attributable risk and compared five-year absolute risk predictions between models using area under the curve (AUC) statistics. All statistical tests were two-sided. BI-RADS density and PRS were independent risk factors across all three studies (P interaction = .23). Relative to those with scattered fibroglandular densities and average PRS (2(nd) quartile), women with extreme density and highest quartile PRS had 2.7-fold (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.74 to 4.12) increased risk, while those with low density and PRS had reduced risk (OR = 0.30, 95% CI = 0.18 to 0.51). PRS added independent information (P < .001) to the BCSC model and improved discriminatory accuracy from AUC = 0.66 to AUC = 0.69. Although the BCSC-PRS model was well calibrated in case-control data, independent cohort data are needed to test calibration in the general population.
我们在三项研究(1643例病例患者,2397例对照患者)中使用逻辑回归模型评估了76位点多基因风险评分(PRS)和乳腺影像报告和数据系统(BI-RADS)乳腺密度是否为独立风险因素。我们将PRS优势比(OR)纳入乳腺癌监测联盟(BCSC)风险预测模型,同时考虑其归因风险,并使用曲线下面积(AUC)统计量比较模型之间的五年绝对风险预测。所有统计检验均为双侧检验。在所有三项研究中,BI-RADS密度和PRS均为独立风险因素(P交互作用 = 0.23)。与具有散在纤维腺密度和平均PRS(第2四分位数)的女性相比,具有极高密度和最高四分位数PRS的女性风险增加2.7倍(95%置信区间[CI]=1.74至4.12),而具有低密度和PRS的女性风险降低(OR = 0.30,95% CI = 0.18至0.51)。PRS为BCSC模型增加了独立信息(P < 0.001),并将鉴别准确性从AUC = 0.66提高到AUC = 0.69。尽管BCSC-PRS模型在病例对照数据中校准良好,但需要独立队列数据来检验在一般人群中的校准情况。