Barnett, Matthew J

Background: Several breast cancer (BC) risk prediction models have been developed to provide personal risk assessments. Though individually validated, their performance has not been systematically evaluated across a wide range of populations or ages. Methods: We harmonized individual-level baseline questionnaire data and incident BC diagnoses from 21 cohorts from North America, Europe, and Australia participating in the Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Project. Five-year absolute risk of invasive BC was estimated for five established risk prediction models using classical risk factors only. Discrimination was evaluated by area under the curve (AUC). Calibration was assessed using average and risk-decile specific expected to observed (E/O) ratios. Performance metrics were meta-analyzed across cohorts and models. Metaregression tested associations between cohort characteristics and performance metrics. Results: This analysis included 1,595,977 women aged 20-75 years, enrolled in studies between 1976-2015, with 19,062 (1.2%) invasive BC cases ascertained within 5 years from exposure assessment. Age-adjusted AUCs were similar across models and cohorts (pooled AUCs by model: 0.57-0.58), while E/O ratios varied substantially (pooled E/O ratios by model: 0.83-1.25). Overestimation was common among predicted high-risk individuals (>3%). No appreciable differences in model performance by cohort age, birth year, race, and variable missingness emerged. Calibration improved after assigning race-specific incidence rates. Conclusion: Existing BC risk prediction models provided similar risk discrimination across multiple cohorts, although there was overestimation of risk for high-risk individuals. Performance variation across cohorts was not driven by specific characteristics, which supports development of a unified risk model for diverse populations that leverages appropriate incidence rates.

Abstract Background: Somatic EGFR mutations define a subset of non–small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) that have clinical impact on NSCLC risk and outcome. However, EGFR-mutation-status is often missing in epidemiologic datasets. We developed and tested pragmatic approaches to account for EGFR-mutation-status based on variables commonly included in epidemiologic datasets and evaluated the clinical utility of these approaches. Methods: Through analysis of the International Lung Cancer Consortium (ILCCO) epidemiologic datasets, we developed a regression model for EGFR-status; we then applied a clinical-restriction approach using the optimal cut-point, and a second epidemiologic, multiple imputation approach to ILCCO survival analyses that did and did not account for EGFR-status. Results: Of 35,356 ILCCO patients with NSCLC, EGFR-mutation-status was available in 4,231 patients. A model regressing known EGFR-mutation-status on clinical and demographic variables achieved a concordance index of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.74–0.77) in the training and 0.77 (95% CI, 0.74–0.79) in the testing dataset. At an optimal cut-point of probability-score = 0.335, sensitivity = 69% and specificity = 72.5% for determining EGFR-wildtype status. In both restriction-based and imputation-based regression analyses of the individual roles of BMI on overall survival of patients with NSCLC, similar results were observed between overall and EGFR-mutation-negative cohort analyses of patients of all ancestries. However, our approach identified some differences: EGFR-mutated Asian patients did not incur a survival benefit from being obese, as observed in EGFR-wildtype Asian patients. Conclusions: We introduce a pragmatic method to evaluate the potential impact of EGFR-status on epidemiological analyses of NSCLC. Impact: The proposed method is generalizable in the common occurrence in which EGFR-status data are missing.