Risk prediction models for breast cancer: a systematic review
Objectives To systematically review and critically appraise published studies of risk prediction models for breast cancer in the general population without breast cancer, and provide evidence for future research in the field.Design Systematic review using the Prediction model study Risk Of Bias Asse...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2022-07-01
|
| Series: | BMJ Open |
| Online Access: | https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/12/7/e055398.full |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832576315651260416 |
|---|---|
| author | Jiang Li He Li Jie He Ni Li Yadi Zheng Zheng Wu Maomao Cao |
| author_facet | Jiang Li He Li Jie He Ni Li Yadi Zheng Zheng Wu Maomao Cao |
| author_sort | Jiang Li |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Objectives To systematically review and critically appraise published studies of risk prediction models for breast cancer in the general population without breast cancer, and provide evidence for future research in the field.Design Systematic review using the Prediction model study Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) framework.Data sources PubMed, the Cochrane Library and Embase were searched from inception to 16 December 2021.Eligibility criteria We included studies reporting multivariable models to estimate the individualised risk of developing female breast cancer among different ethnic groups. Search was limited to English language only.Data extraction and synthesis Two reviewers independently screened, reviewed, extracted and assessed studies with discrepancies resolved through discussion or a third reviewer. Risk of bias was assessed according to the PROBAST framework.Results 63 894 studies were screened and 40 studies with 47 risk prediction models were included in the review. Most of the studies used logistic regression to develop breast cancer risk prediction models for Caucasian women by case–control data. The most widely used risk factor was reproductive factors and the highest area under the curve was 0.943 (95% CI 0.919 to 0.967). All the models included in the review had high risk of bias.Conclusions No risk prediction models for breast cancer were recommended for different ethnic groups and models incorporating mammographic density or single-nucleotide polymorphisms among Asian women are few and poorly needed. High-quality breast cancer risk prediction models assessed by PROBAST should be developed and validated, especially among Asian women.PROSPERO registration number CRD42020202570. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-083d0b94dd3948c3b6ed742f667a985d |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2044-6055 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2022-07-01 |
| publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMJ Open |
| spelling | doaj-art-083d0b94dd3948c3b6ed742f667a985d2025-01-31T07:05:10ZengBMJ Publishing GroupBMJ Open2044-60552022-07-0112710.1136/bmjopen-2021-055398Risk prediction models for breast cancer: a systematic reviewJiang Li0He Li1Jie He2Ni Li3Yadi Zheng4Zheng Wu5Maomao Cao6Office of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, ChinaOffice of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, ChinaDepartment of Health Management, Women and Children’s Hospital, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, ChinaOffice of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, ChinaOffice of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, ChinaOffice of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, ChinaOffice of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, ChinaObjectives To systematically review and critically appraise published studies of risk prediction models for breast cancer in the general population without breast cancer, and provide evidence for future research in the field.Design Systematic review using the Prediction model study Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) framework.Data sources PubMed, the Cochrane Library and Embase were searched from inception to 16 December 2021.Eligibility criteria We included studies reporting multivariable models to estimate the individualised risk of developing female breast cancer among different ethnic groups. Search was limited to English language only.Data extraction and synthesis Two reviewers independently screened, reviewed, extracted and assessed studies with discrepancies resolved through discussion or a third reviewer. Risk of bias was assessed according to the PROBAST framework.Results 63 894 studies were screened and 40 studies with 47 risk prediction models were included in the review. Most of the studies used logistic regression to develop breast cancer risk prediction models for Caucasian women by case–control data. The most widely used risk factor was reproductive factors and the highest area under the curve was 0.943 (95% CI 0.919 to 0.967). All the models included in the review had high risk of bias.Conclusions No risk prediction models for breast cancer were recommended for different ethnic groups and models incorporating mammographic density or single-nucleotide polymorphisms among Asian women are few and poorly needed. High-quality breast cancer risk prediction models assessed by PROBAST should be developed and validated, especially among Asian women.PROSPERO registration number CRD42020202570.https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/12/7/e055398.full |
| spellingShingle | Jiang Li He Li Jie He Ni Li Yadi Zheng Zheng Wu Maomao Cao Risk prediction models for breast cancer: a systematic review BMJ Open |
| title | Risk prediction models for breast cancer: a systematic review |
| title_full | Risk prediction models for breast cancer: a systematic review |
| title_fullStr | Risk prediction models for breast cancer: a systematic review |
| title_full_unstemmed | Risk prediction models for breast cancer: a systematic review |
| title_short | Risk prediction models for breast cancer: a systematic review |
| title_sort | risk prediction models for breast cancer a systematic review |
| url | https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/12/7/e055398.full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT jiangli riskpredictionmodelsforbreastcancerasystematicreview AT heli riskpredictionmodelsforbreastcancerasystematicreview AT jiehe riskpredictionmodelsforbreastcancerasystematicreview AT nili riskpredictionmodelsforbreastcancerasystematicreview AT yadizheng riskpredictionmodelsforbreastcancerasystematicreview AT zhengwu riskpredictionmodelsforbreastcancerasystematicreview AT maomaocao riskpredictionmodelsforbreastcancerasystematicreview |