Prediction of contralateral breast cancer

Prediction of contralateral breast cancer: external validation of risk calculators in 20 international cohorts

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Standard

Prediction of contralateral breast cancer : external validation of risk calculators in 20 international cohorts. / Giardiello, Daniele; Hauptmann, Michael; Steyerberg, Ewout W.; Adank, Muriel A.; Akdeniz, Delal; Blom, Jannet C.; Blomqvist, Carl; Bojesen, Stig E.; Bolla, Manjeet K.; Brinkhuis, Mariël; Chang-Claude, Jenny; Czene, Kamila; Devilee, Peter; Dunning, Alison M.; Easton, Douglas F.; Eccles, Diana M.; Fasching, Peter A.; Figueroa, Jonine; Flyger, Henrik; García-Closas, Montserrat; Haeberle, Lothar; Haiman, Christopher A.; Hall, Per; Hamann, Ute; Hopper, John L.; Jager, Agnes; Jakubowska, Anna; Jung, Audrey; Keeman, Renske; Koppert, Linetta B.; Kramer, Iris; Lambrechts, Diether; Le Marchand, Loic; Lindblom, Annika; Lubiński, Jan; Manoochehri, Mehdi; Mariani, Luigi; Nevanlinna, Heli; Oldenburg, Hester S.A.; Pelders, Saskia; Pharoah, Paul D.P.; Shah, Mitul; Siesling, Sabine; Smit, Vincent T.H.B.M.; Southey, Melissa C.; Tapper, William J.; Tollenaar, Rob A.E.M.; van den Broek, Alexandra J.; van Deurzen, Carolien H.M.; van Leeuwen, Flora E.; van Ongeval, Chantal; Van’t Veer, Laura J.; Wang, Qin; Wendt, Camilla; Westenend, Pieter J.; Hooning, Maartje J.; Schmidt, Marjanka K.

In: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, Vol. 181, No. 2, 2020, p. 423-434.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Harvard

Giardiello, D, Hauptmann, M, Steyerberg, EW, Adank, MA, Akdeniz, D, Blom, JC, Blomqvist, C, Bojesen, SE, Bolla, MK, Brinkhuis, M, Chang-Claude, J, Czene, K, Devilee, P, Dunning, AM, Easton, DF, Eccles, DM, Fasching, PA, Figueroa, J, Flyger, H, García-Closas, M, Haeberle, L, Haiman, CA, Hall, P, Hamann, U, Hopper, JL, Jager, A, Jakubowska, A, Jung, A, Keeman, R, Koppert, LB, Kramer, I, Lambrechts, D, Le Marchand, L, Lindblom, A, Lubiński, J, Manoochehri, M, Mariani, L, Nevanlinna, H, Oldenburg, HSA, Pelders, S, Pharoah, PDP, Shah, M, Siesling, S, Smit, VTHBM, Southey, MC, Tapper, WJ, Tollenaar, RAEM, van den Broek, AJ, van Deurzen, CHM, van Leeuwen, FE, van Ongeval, C, Van’t Veer, LJ, Wang, Q, Wendt, C, Westenend, PJ, Hooning, MJ & Schmidt, MK 2020, 'Prediction of contralateral breast cancer: external validation of risk calculators in 20 international cohorts', Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, vol. 181, no. 2, pp. 423-434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-020-05611-8

APA

Giardiello, D., Hauptmann, M., Steyerberg, E. W., Adank, M. A., Akdeniz, D., Blom, J. C., Blomqvist, C., Bojesen, S. E., Bolla, M. K., Brinkhuis, M., Chang-Claude, J., Czene, K., Devilee, P., Dunning, A. M., Easton, D. F., Eccles, D. M., Fasching, P. A., Figueroa, J., Flyger, H., ... Schmidt, M. K. (2020). Prediction of contralateral breast cancer: external validation of risk calculators in 20 international cohorts. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 181(2), 423-434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-020-05611-8

Vancouver

Giardiello D, Hauptmann M, Steyerberg EW, Adank MA, Akdeniz D, Blom JC et al. Prediction of contralateral breast cancer: external validation of risk calculators in 20 international cohorts. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment. 2020;181(2):423-434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-020-05611-8

Author

Giardiello, Daniele ; Hauptmann, Michael ; Steyerberg, Ewout W. ; Adank, Muriel A. ; Akdeniz, Delal ; Blom, Jannet C. ; Blomqvist, Carl ; Bojesen, Stig E. ; Bolla, Manjeet K. ; Brinkhuis, Mariël ; Chang-Claude, Jenny ; Czene, Kamila ; Devilee, Peter ; Dunning, Alison M. ; Easton, Douglas F. ; Eccles, Diana M. ; Fasching, Peter A. ; Figueroa, Jonine ; Flyger, Henrik ; García-Closas, Montserrat ; Haeberle, Lothar ; Haiman, Christopher A. ; Hall, Per ; Hamann, Ute ; Hopper, John L. ; Jager, Agnes ; Jakubowska, Anna ; Jung, Audrey ; Keeman, Renske ; Koppert, Linetta B. ; Kramer, Iris ; Lambrechts, Diether ; Le Marchand, Loic ; Lindblom, Annika ; Lubiński, Jan ; Manoochehri, Mehdi ; Mariani, Luigi ; Nevanlinna, Heli ; Oldenburg, Hester S.A. ; Pelders, Saskia ; Pharoah, Paul D.P. ; Shah, Mitul ; Siesling, Sabine ; Smit, Vincent T.H.B.M. ; Southey, Melissa C. ; Tapper, William J. ; Tollenaar, Rob A.E.M. ; van den Broek, Alexandra J. ; van Deurzen, Carolien H.M. ; van Leeuwen, Flora E. ; van Ongeval, Chantal ; Van’t Veer, Laura J. ; Wang, Qin ; Wendt, Camilla ; Westenend, Pieter J. ; Hooning, Maartje J. ; Schmidt, Marjanka K. / Prediction of contralateral breast cancer : external validation of risk calculators in 20 international cohorts. In: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment. 2020 ; Vol. 181, No. 2. pp. 423-434.

Bibtex

@article{d3cf124e414b467f8c496d745db0efd0,

title = "Prediction of contralateral breast cancer: external validation of risk calculators in 20 international cohorts",

abstract = "Background: Three tools are currently available to predict the risk of contralateral breast cancer (CBC). We aimed to compare the performance of the Manchester formula, CBCrisk, and PredictCBC in patients with invasive breast cancer (BC). Methods: We analyzed data of 132,756 patients (4682 CBC) from 20 international studies with a median follow-up of 8.8 years. Prediction performance included discrimination, quantified as a time-dependent Area-Under-the-Curve (AUC) at 5 and 10 years after diagnosis of primary BC, and calibration, quantified as the expected-observed (E/O) ratio at 5 and 10 years and the calibration slope. Results: The AUC at 10 years was: 0.58 (95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.57–0.59) for CBCrisk; 0.60 (95% CI 0.59–0.61) for the Manchester formula; 0.63 (95% CI 0.59–0.66) and 0.59 (95% CI 0.56–0.62) for PredictCBC-1A (for settings where BRCA1/2 mutation status is available) and PredictCBC-1B (for the general population), respectively. The E/O at 10 years: 0.82 (95% CI 0.51–1.32) for CBCrisk; 1.53 (95% CI 0.63–3.73) for the Manchester formula; 1.28 (95% CI 0.63–2.58) for PredictCBC-1A and 1.35 (95% CI 0.65–2.77) for PredictCBC-1B. The calibration slope was 1.26 (95% CI 1.01–1.50) for CBCrisk; 0.90 (95% CI 0.79–1.02) for PredictCBC-1A; 0.81 (95% CI 0.63–0.99) for PredictCBC-1B, and 0.39 (95% CI 0.34–0.43) for the Manchester formula. Conclusions: Current CBC risk prediction tools provide only moderate discrimination and the Manchester formula was poorly calibrated. Better predictors and re-calibration are needed to improve CBC prediction and to identify low- and high-CBC risk patients for clinical decision-making.",

keywords = "Clinical decision-making, Contralateral breast cancer, Risk prediction, Validation",

author = "Daniele Giardiello and Michael Hauptmann and Steyerberg, {Ewout W.} and Adank, {Muriel A.} and Delal Akdeniz and Blom, {Jannet C.} and Carl Blomqvist and Bojesen, {Stig E.} and Bolla, {Manjeet K.} and Mari{\"e}l Brinkhuis and Jenny Chang-Claude and Kamila Czene and Peter Devilee and Dunning, {Alison M.} and Easton, {Douglas F.} and Eccles, {Diana M.} and Fasching, {Peter A.} and Jonine Figueroa and Henrik Flyger and Montserrat Garc{\'i}a-Closas and Lothar Haeberle and Haiman, {Christopher A.} and Per Hall and Ute Hamann and Hopper, {John L.} and Agnes Jager and Anna Jakubowska and Audrey Jung and Renske Keeman and Koppert, {Linetta B.} and Iris Kramer and Diether Lambrechts and {Le Marchand}, Loic and Annika Lindblom and Jan Lubi{\'n}ski and Mehdi Manoochehri and Luigi Mariani and Heli Nevanlinna and Oldenburg, {Hester S.A.} and Saskia Pelders and Pharoah, {Paul D.P.} and Mitul Shah and Sabine Siesling and Smit, {Vincent T.H.B.M.} and Southey, {Melissa C.} and Tapper, {William J.} and Tollenaar, {Rob A.E.M.} and {van den Broek}, {Alexandra J.} and {van Deurzen}, {Carolien H.M.} and {van Leeuwen}, {Flora E.} and {van Ongeval}, Chantal and {Van{\textquoteright}t Veer}, {Laura J.} and Qin Wang and Camilla Wendt and Westenend, {Pieter J.} and Hooning, {Maartje J.} and Schmidt, {Marjanka K.}",

year = "2020",

doi = "10.1007/s10549-020-05611-8",

language = "English",

volume = "181",

pages = "423--434",

journal = "Breast Cancer Research and Treatment",

issn = "0167-6806",

publisher = "Springer",

number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Prediction of contralateral breast cancer

T2 - external validation of risk calculators in 20 international cohorts

AU - Giardiello, Daniele

AU - Hauptmann, Michael

AU - Steyerberg, Ewout W.

AU - Adank, Muriel A.

AU - Akdeniz, Delal

AU - Blom, Jannet C.

AU - Blomqvist, Carl

AU - Bojesen, Stig E.

AU - Bolla, Manjeet K.

AU - Brinkhuis, Mariël

AU - Chang-Claude, Jenny

AU - Czene, Kamila

AU - Devilee, Peter

AU - Dunning, Alison M.

AU - Easton, Douglas F.

AU - Eccles, Diana M.

AU - Fasching, Peter A.

AU - Figueroa, Jonine

AU - Flyger, Henrik

AU - García-Closas, Montserrat

AU - Haeberle, Lothar

AU - Haiman, Christopher A.

AU - Hall, Per

AU - Hamann, Ute

AU - Hopper, John L.

AU - Jager, Agnes

AU - Jakubowska, Anna

AU - Jung, Audrey

AU - Keeman, Renske

AU - Koppert, Linetta B.

AU - Kramer, Iris

AU - Lambrechts, Diether

AU - Le Marchand, Loic

AU - Lindblom, Annika

AU - Lubiński, Jan

AU - Manoochehri, Mehdi

AU - Mariani, Luigi

AU - Nevanlinna, Heli

AU - Oldenburg, Hester S.A.

AU - Pelders, Saskia

AU - Pharoah, Paul D.P.

AU - Shah, Mitul

AU - Siesling, Sabine

AU - Smit, Vincent T.H.B.M.

AU - Southey, Melissa C.

AU - Tapper, William J.

AU - Tollenaar, Rob A.E.M.

AU - van den Broek, Alexandra J.

AU - van Deurzen, Carolien H.M.

AU - van Leeuwen, Flora E.

AU - van Ongeval, Chantal

AU - Van’t Veer, Laura J.

AU - Wang, Qin

AU - Wendt, Camilla

AU - Westenend, Pieter J.

AU - Hooning, Maartje J.

AU - Schmidt, Marjanka K.

PY - 2020

Y1 - 2020

N2 - Background: Three tools are currently available to predict the risk of contralateral breast cancer (CBC). We aimed to compare the performance of the Manchester formula, CBCrisk, and PredictCBC in patients with invasive breast cancer (BC). Methods: We analyzed data of 132,756 patients (4682 CBC) from 20 international studies with a median follow-up of 8.8 years. Prediction performance included discrimination, quantified as a time-dependent Area-Under-the-Curve (AUC) at 5 and 10 years after diagnosis of primary BC, and calibration, quantified as the expected-observed (E/O) ratio at 5 and 10 years and the calibration slope. Results: The AUC at 10 years was: 0.58 (95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.57–0.59) for CBCrisk; 0.60 (95% CI 0.59–0.61) for the Manchester formula; 0.63 (95% CI 0.59–0.66) and 0.59 (95% CI 0.56–0.62) for PredictCBC-1A (for settings where BRCA1/2 mutation status is available) and PredictCBC-1B (for the general population), respectively. The E/O at 10 years: 0.82 (95% CI 0.51–1.32) for CBCrisk; 1.53 (95% CI 0.63–3.73) for the Manchester formula; 1.28 (95% CI 0.63–2.58) for PredictCBC-1A and 1.35 (95% CI 0.65–2.77) for PredictCBC-1B. The calibration slope was 1.26 (95% CI 1.01–1.50) for CBCrisk; 0.90 (95% CI 0.79–1.02) for PredictCBC-1A; 0.81 (95% CI 0.63–0.99) for PredictCBC-1B, and 0.39 (95% CI 0.34–0.43) for the Manchester formula. Conclusions: Current CBC risk prediction tools provide only moderate discrimination and the Manchester formula was poorly calibrated. Better predictors and re-calibration are needed to improve CBC prediction and to identify low- and high-CBC risk patients for clinical decision-making.

AB - Background: Three tools are currently available to predict the risk of contralateral breast cancer (CBC). We aimed to compare the performance of the Manchester formula, CBCrisk, and PredictCBC in patients with invasive breast cancer (BC). Methods: We analyzed data of 132,756 patients (4682 CBC) from 20 international studies with a median follow-up of 8.8 years. Prediction performance included discrimination, quantified as a time-dependent Area-Under-the-Curve (AUC) at 5 and 10 years after diagnosis of primary BC, and calibration, quantified as the expected-observed (E/O) ratio at 5 and 10 years and the calibration slope. Results: The AUC at 10 years was: 0.58 (95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.57–0.59) for CBCrisk; 0.60 (95% CI 0.59–0.61) for the Manchester formula; 0.63 (95% CI 0.59–0.66) and 0.59 (95% CI 0.56–0.62) for PredictCBC-1A (for settings where BRCA1/2 mutation status is available) and PredictCBC-1B (for the general population), respectively. The E/O at 10 years: 0.82 (95% CI 0.51–1.32) for CBCrisk; 1.53 (95% CI 0.63–3.73) for the Manchester formula; 1.28 (95% CI 0.63–2.58) for PredictCBC-1A and 1.35 (95% CI 0.65–2.77) for PredictCBC-1B. The calibration slope was 1.26 (95% CI 1.01–1.50) for CBCrisk; 0.90 (95% CI 0.79–1.02) for PredictCBC-1A; 0.81 (95% CI 0.63–0.99) for PredictCBC-1B, and 0.39 (95% CI 0.34–0.43) for the Manchester formula. Conclusions: Current CBC risk prediction tools provide only moderate discrimination and the Manchester formula was poorly calibrated. Better predictors and re-calibration are needed to improve CBC prediction and to identify low- and high-CBC risk patients for clinical decision-making.

KW - Clinical decision-making

KW - Contralateral breast cancer

KW - Risk prediction

KW - Validation

U2 - 10.1007/s10549-020-05611-8

DO - 10.1007/s10549-020-05611-8

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 32279280

AN - SCOPUS:85083742516

VL - 181

SP - 423

EP - 434

JO - Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

JF - Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

SN - 0167-6806

IS - 2

ER -

ID: 260193698