Anthanasios Sevdalis, Xiaoyan Deng, Dipankar Bandyopadhyay, Kandace P McGuire
{"title":"The Value of Tyrer-Cuzick Versus Gail Risk Modeling in Predicting Benefit from Screening MRI in Breast Cancer.","authors":"Anthanasios Sevdalis, Xiaoyan Deng, Dipankar Bandyopadhyay, Kandace P McGuire","doi":"10.4274/ejbh.galenos.2021.2021-8-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed malignancy in US women. Risk assessment tools such as the Gail and Tyrer-Cuzick (TC) models calculate risk for breast cancer based on modifiable and non-modifiable factors in order to guide screening and prevention for high-risk patients. Screening with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in addition to mammography is recommended in high-risk patients (>20% lifetime risk on TC or other familial based models). Currently, no published data indicate these recommendations improve cancer detection.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>With the aim to determine what percentage lifetime risk (LR%) is associated with a statistically significant increase in cancer detection, the Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) breast imaging database was reviewed to identify patients who received screening MRI.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves for the Gail and TC models and the rate of cancer detection correlated to 20% LR% were calculated. The Gail model was considered the control model as it is NOT considered a validated screening tool for MRI. TC is not more accurate than Gail when predicting benefit of breast MRI screening. (area under the curve (AUC): 0.6841, 0.6543 respectively, p = 0.828). Univariate analysis failed to demonstrate a statistically significant relationship between the Gail or TC LR % and diagnosis of breast cancer when using 20% as the cutoff for high-risk classification (p = 1.0, 0.369 respectively). Neither the TC nor the Gail risk calculators demonstrated a significant correlation between risk and the likelihood of diagnosis of breast cancer when screened with MRI.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Larger cohort studies are necessary to determine the risk percentage most predictive of a breast cancer diagnosis using MRI as screening.</p>","PeriodicalId":11885,"journal":{"name":"European journal of breast health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8734526/pdf/ejbh-18-79.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European journal of breast health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4274/ejbh.galenos.2021.2021-8-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed malignancy in US women. Risk assessment tools such as the Gail and Tyrer-Cuzick (TC) models calculate risk for breast cancer based on modifiable and non-modifiable factors in order to guide screening and prevention for high-risk patients. Screening with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in addition to mammography is recommended in high-risk patients (>20% lifetime risk on TC or other familial based models). Currently, no published data indicate these recommendations improve cancer detection.
Materials and methods: With the aim to determine what percentage lifetime risk (LR%) is associated with a statistically significant increase in cancer detection, the Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) breast imaging database was reviewed to identify patients who received screening MRI.
Results: The receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves for the Gail and TC models and the rate of cancer detection correlated to 20% LR% were calculated. The Gail model was considered the control model as it is NOT considered a validated screening tool for MRI. TC is not more accurate than Gail when predicting benefit of breast MRI screening. (area under the curve (AUC): 0.6841, 0.6543 respectively, p = 0.828). Univariate analysis failed to demonstrate a statistically significant relationship between the Gail or TC LR % and diagnosis of breast cancer when using 20% as the cutoff for high-risk classification (p = 1.0, 0.369 respectively). Neither the TC nor the Gail risk calculators demonstrated a significant correlation between risk and the likelihood of diagnosis of breast cancer when screened with MRI.
Conclusion: Larger cohort studies are necessary to determine the risk percentage most predictive of a breast cancer diagnosis using MRI as screening.