» Articles » PMID: 31377875

Improving the Diagnostic Accuracy of a Stratified Screening Strategy by Identifying the Optimal Risk Cutoff

Overview
Specialties Oncology
Public Health
Date 2019 Aug 5
PMID 31377875
Citations 3
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: The American Cancer Society (ACS) suggests using a stratified strategy for breast cancer screening. The strategy includes assessing risk of breast cancer, screening women at high risk with both MRI and mammography, and screening women at low risk with mammography alone. The ACS chose their cutoff for high risk using expert consensus.

Methods: We propose instead an analytic approach that maximizes the diagnostic accuracy (AUC/ROC) of a risk-based stratified screening strategy in a population. The inputs are the joint distribution of screening test scores, and the odds of disease, for the given risk score. Using the approach for breast cancer screening, we estimated the optimal risk cutoff for two different risk models: the Breast Cancer Screening Consortium (BCSC) model and a hypothetical model with much better discriminatory accuracy. Data on mammography and MRI test score distributions were drawn from the Magnetic Resonance Imaging Screening Study Group.

Results: A risk model with an excellent discriminatory accuracy (c-statistic [Formula: see text]) yielded a reasonable cutoff where only about 20% of women had dual screening. However, the BCSC risk model (c-statistic [Formula: see text]) lacked the discriminatory accuracy to differentiate between women who needed dual screening, and women who needed only mammography.

Conclusion: Our research provides a general approach to optimize the diagnostic accuracy of a stratified screening strategy in a population, and to assess whether risk models are sufficiently accurate to guide stratified screening. For breast cancer, most risk models lack enough discriminatory accuracy to make stratified screening a reasonable recommendation.

Citing Articles

The Prognostic Quality of Risk Prediction Models to Assess the Individual Breast Cancer Risk in Women: An Overview of Reviews.

Wolf S, Zechmeister-Koss I, Fruehwirth I Breast J. 2025; 2024:1711696.

PMID: 39742377 PMC: 10978083. DOI: 10.1155/2024/1711696.


Machine learning-based lifetime breast cancer risk reclassification compared with the BOADICEA model: impact on screening recommendations.

Ming C, Viassolo V, Probst-Hensch N, Dinov I, Chappuis P, Katapodi M Br J Cancer. 2020; 123(5):860-867.

PMID: 32565540 PMC: 7463251. DOI: 10.1038/s41416-020-0937-0.


Letter to the editor: Response to Giardiello D, Antoniou AC, Mariani L, Easton DF, Steyerberg EW.

Ming C, Viassolo V, Probst-Hensch N, Chappuis P, Dinov I, Katapodi M Breast Cancer Res. 2020; 22(1):35.

PMID: 32276659 PMC: 7146948. DOI: 10.1186/s13058-020-01274-x.

References
1.
Wald N, Hackshaw A, Frost C . When can a risk factor be used as a worthwhile screening test?. BMJ. 1999; 319(7224):1562-5. PMC: 1117271. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.319.7224.1562. View

2.
Baker S . Identifying combinations of cancer markers for further study as triggers of early intervention. Biometrics. 2000; 56(4):1082-7. DOI: 10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.01082.x. View

3.
Claus E . Risk models in genetic epidemiology. Stat Methods Med Res. 2001; 9(6):589-601. DOI: 10.1177/096228020000900605. View

4.
Berry D, Iversen Jr E, Gudbjartsson D, Hiller E, Garber J, Peshkin B . BRCAPRO validation, sensitivity of genetic testing of BRCA1/BRCA2, and prevalence of other breast cancer susceptibility genes. J Clin Oncol. 2002; 20(11):2701-12. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2002.05.121. View

5.
Amir E, Evans D, Shenton A, Lalloo F, Moran A, Boggis C . Evaluation of breast cancer risk assessment packages in the family history evaluation and screening programme. J Med Genet. 2003; 40(11):807-14. PMC: 1735317. DOI: 10.1136/jmg.40.11.807. View