Back to Search Start Over

Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tools for Stratifying Women into Risk Groups: A Systematic Review.

Authors :
Velentzis, Louiza S.
Freeman, Victoria
Campbell, Denise
Hughes, Suzanne
Luo, Qingwei
Steinberg, Julia
Egger, Sam
Mann, G. Bruce
Nickson, Carolyn
Source :
Cancers; Feb2023, Vol. 15 Issue 4, p1124, 28p
Publication Year :
2023

Abstract

Simple Summary: Early detection of breast cancer in asymptomatic women through screening is an important strategy in reducing the burden of breast cancer. In current organized breast screening programs, age is the predominant risk factor. Breast cancer risk assessment tools are numerical models that can combine information on various risk factors to estimate the risk of being diagnosed with breast cancer within a certain time period. These tools could be used to offer risk-based screening. This systematic review assessed, using a variety of methods, how accurately breast cancer risk assessment tools can group women eligible for screening within a population, into risk groups, so that each group could potentially be offered a screening protocol with more benefits and less harms compared to current age-based screening. Background: The benefits and harms of breast screening may be better balanced through a risk-stratified approach. We conducted a systematic review assessing the accuracy of questionnaire-based risk assessment tools for this purpose. Methods: Population: asymptomatic women aged ≥40 years; Intervention: questionnaire-based risk assessment tool (incorporating breast density and polygenic risk where available); Comparison: different tool applied to the same population; Primary outcome: breast cancer incidence; Scope: external validation studies identified from databases including Medline and Embase (period 1 January 2008–20 July 2021). We assessed calibration (goodness-of-fit) between expected and observed cancers and compared observed cancer rates by risk group. Risk of bias was assessed with PROBAST. Results: Of 5124 records, 13 were included examining 11 tools across 15 cohorts. The Gail tool was most represented (n = 11), followed by Tyrer-Cuzick (n = 5), BRCAPRO and iCARE-Lit (n = 3). No tool was consistently well-calibrated across multiple studies and breast density or polygenic risk scores did not improve calibration. Most tools identified a risk group with higher rates of observed cancers, but few tools identified lower-risk groups across different settings. All tools demonstrated a high risk of bias. Conclusion: Some risk tools can identify groups of women at higher or lower breast cancer risk, but this is highly dependent on the setting and population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
20726694
Volume :
15
Issue :
4
Database :
Complementary Index
Journal :
Cancers
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
162087587
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15041124