TY - JOUR
T1 - Added value of serum hormone measurements in risk prediction models for breast cancer for women not using exogenous hormones
T2 - Results from the EPIC cohort
AU - Hüsing, Anika
AU - Fortner, René T.
AU - Kühn, Tilman
AU - Overvad, Kim
AU - Tjønneland, Anne
AU - Olsen, Anja
AU - Boutron-Ruault, Marie Christine
AU - Severi, Gianluca
AU - Fournier, Agnes
AU - Boeing, Heiner
AU - Trichopoulou, Antonia
AU - Benetou, Vassiliki
AU - Orfanos, Philippos
AU - Masala, Giovanna
AU - Pala, Valeria
AU - Tumino, Rosario
AU - Fasanelli, Francesca
AU - Panico, Salvatore
AU - De Mesquita, H. Bas Bueno
AU - Peeters, Petra H.
AU - Van Gills, Carla H.
AU - Quirós, J. Ramón
AU - Agudo, Antonio
AU - Sánchez, Maria Jose
AU - Chirlaque, Maria Dolores
AU - Barricarte, Aurelio
AU - Amiano, Pilar
AU - Khaw, Kay Tee
AU - Travis, Ruth C.
AU - Dossus, Laure
AU - Li, Kuanrong
AU - Ferrari, Pietro
AU - Merritt, Melissa A.
AU - Tzoulaki, Ioanna
AU - Riboli, Elio
AU - Kaaks, Rudolf
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
©2017 AACR.
PY - 2017/8/1
Y1 - 2017/8/1
N2 - Purpose: Circulating hormone concentrations are associated with breast cancer risk, with well-established associations for postmenopausal women. Biomarkers may represent minimally invasive measures to improve risk prediction models. Experimental Design: We evaluated improvements in discrimination gained by adding serum biomarker concentrations to risk estimates derived from risk prediction models developed by Gail and colleagues and Pfeiffer and colleagues using a nested case–control study within the EPIC cohort, including 1,217 breast cancer cases and 1,976 matched controls. Participants were pre- or postmenopausal at blood collection. Circulating sex steroids, prolactin, insulin-like growth factor (IGF) I, IGF-binding protein 3, and sex hormone–binding globulin (SHBG) were evaluated using backward elimination separately in women pre- and postmenopausal at blood collection. Improvement in discrimination was evaluated as the change in concordance statistic (C-statistic) from a modified Gail or Pfeiffer risk score alone versus models, including the biomarkers and risk score. Internal validation with bootstrapping (1,000-fold) was used to adjust for overfitting. Results: Among women postmenopausal at blood collection, estradiol, testosterone, and SHBG were selected into the prediction models. For breast cancer overall, model discrimination after including biomarkers was 5.3 percentage points higher than the modified Gail model alone, and 3.4 percentage points higher than the Pfeiffer model alone, after accounting for overfitting. Discrimination was more markedly improved for estrogen receptor–positive disease (percentage point change in C-statistic: 7.2, Gail; 4.8, Pfeiffer). We observed no improvement in discrimination among women premenopausal at blood collection. Conclusions: Integration of hormone measurements in clinical risk prediction models may represent a strategy to improve breast cancer risk stratification.
AB - Purpose: Circulating hormone concentrations are associated with breast cancer risk, with well-established associations for postmenopausal women. Biomarkers may represent minimally invasive measures to improve risk prediction models. Experimental Design: We evaluated improvements in discrimination gained by adding serum biomarker concentrations to risk estimates derived from risk prediction models developed by Gail and colleagues and Pfeiffer and colleagues using a nested case–control study within the EPIC cohort, including 1,217 breast cancer cases and 1,976 matched controls. Participants were pre- or postmenopausal at blood collection. Circulating sex steroids, prolactin, insulin-like growth factor (IGF) I, IGF-binding protein 3, and sex hormone–binding globulin (SHBG) were evaluated using backward elimination separately in women pre- and postmenopausal at blood collection. Improvement in discrimination was evaluated as the change in concordance statistic (C-statistic) from a modified Gail or Pfeiffer risk score alone versus models, including the biomarkers and risk score. Internal validation with bootstrapping (1,000-fold) was used to adjust for overfitting. Results: Among women postmenopausal at blood collection, estradiol, testosterone, and SHBG were selected into the prediction models. For breast cancer overall, model discrimination after including biomarkers was 5.3 percentage points higher than the modified Gail model alone, and 3.4 percentage points higher than the Pfeiffer model alone, after accounting for overfitting. Discrimination was more markedly improved for estrogen receptor–positive disease (percentage point change in C-statistic: 7.2, Gail; 4.8, Pfeiffer). We observed no improvement in discrimination among women premenopausal at blood collection. Conclusions: Integration of hormone measurements in clinical risk prediction models may represent a strategy to improve breast cancer risk stratification.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85027117087&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-3011
DO - 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-3011
M3 - Article
C2 - 28246273
AN - SCOPUS:85027117087
SN - 1078-0432
VL - 23
SP - 4181
EP - 4189
JO - Clinical Cancer Research
JF - Clinical Cancer Research
IS - 15
ER -