» Articles » PMID: 30089770

Use of Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curve Analysis for Tyrer-Cuzick and Gail in Breast Cancer Screening in Jiangxi Province, China

Overview
Journal Med Sci Monit
Date 2018 Aug 10
PMID 30089770
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

BACKGROUND Breast cancer is a malignant tumor derived from breast gland epithelium. The screening and early diagnosis of breast cancer in high-risk populations can effectively suppress its threat to women's health and improve treatment efficiency, and thus has critical importance. Using various evaluation models, the present study evaluated cancer risk in 35-69-year-old women, and the usefulness of models in breast cancer prevention was compared. MATERIAL AND METHODS A total of 150 infiltrative breast cancer patients who were diagnosed with breast cancer at our hospital were recruited, along with 130 healthy women as the control group. A retrospective study was performed to collect information. The 5-year risk of breast cancer was evaluated using the Gail and Tyrer-Cuzick models. Diagnostic results were analyzed to plot ROC curves for comparing the value for screening between Gail and Tyrer-Cuzick models. RESULTS The Gail model has 53.33% sensitivity and 77.69% specificity, with 73.39% positive prediction value, 59.06% negative prediction value, 64.64% accuracy, and 0.31 Jordon index. The Tyrer-Cuzick model had 66.00% sensitivity, 86.92% specificity, 85.34% positive prediction value, 68.90% negative prediction value, 75.71% accuracy, and 0.53 Jordon index. The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.665 for the Gail model (95% CI: 0.629~0.701) and 0.786 for the Tyrer-Cuzick model (95% CI: 0.757~0.815). CONCLUSIONS Both Gail model and Tyrer-Cuzick models can be used to evaluate breast cancer risk. The Gail model has relatively lower accuracy in evaluating breast cancer risk in Jiangxi province of China and the Tyrer-Cuzick model had relatively higher accuracy.

Citing Articles

The Value of Tyrer-Cuzick Versus Gail Risk Modeling in Predicting Benefit from Screening MRI in Breast Cancer.

Sevdalis A, Deng X, Bandyopadhyay D, McGuire K Eur J Breast Health. 2022; 18(1):79-84.

PMID: 35059595 PMC: 8734526. DOI: 10.4274/ejbh.galenos.2021.2021-8-2.


Risk-predicted dual nomograms consisting of clinical and ultrasound factors for downgrading BI-RADS category 4a breast lesions - A multiple centre study.

Niu Z, Tian J, Ran H, Ren W, Chang C, Yuan J J Cancer. 2021; 12(1):292-304.

PMID: 33391426 PMC: 7738830. DOI: 10.7150/jca.51302.


Assessment of the risk of developing breast cancer using the Gail model in Asian females: A systematic review.

Solikhah S, Nurdjannah S Heliyon. 2020; 6(4):e03794.

PMID: 32346636 PMC: 7182726. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03794.


Comparative Analysis between the Gail, Tyrer-Cuzick and BRCAPRO Models for Breast Cancer Screening in Brazilian Population.

Stevanato K, Pedroso R, Iora P, Dos Santos L, Pelloso F, Melo W Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2019; 20(11):3407-3413.

PMID: 31759366 PMC: 7063010. DOI: 10.31557/APJCP.2019.20.11.3407.

References
1.
Pessina F, Navarria P, Cozzi L, Franceschini D, Tomatis S, Clerici E . Outcome Evaluation of HER2 Breast Cancer Patients with Limited Brain Metastasis. Anticancer Res. 2017; 37(12):7057-7062. DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.12177. View

2.
Zuo T, Zheng R, Zeng H, Zhang S, Chen W . Female breast cancer incidence and mortality in China, 2013. Thorac Cancer. 2017; 8(3):214-218. PMC: 5415464. DOI: 10.1111/1759-7714.12426. View

3.
Boughey J, Hartmann L, Anderson S, Degnim A, Vierkant R, Reynolds C . Evaluation of the Tyrer-Cuzick (International Breast Cancer Intervention Study) model for breast cancer risk prediction in women with atypical hyperplasia. J Clin Oncol. 2010; 28(22):3591-6. PMC: 2917314. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2010.28.0784. View

4.
Rojas K, Stuckey A . Breast Cancer Epidemiology and Risk Factors. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 59(4):651-672. DOI: 10.1097/GRF.0000000000000239. View

5.
Al Otaibi H . Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Using the Gail Model and It’s Predictors in Saudi Women. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2017; 18(11):2971-2975. PMC: 5773779. DOI: 10.22034/APJCP.2017.18.11.2971. View