NSABP Members' Area
  Password Protected - Access
  Limited to NSABP Participating
  Institutions Only


NSABP Foundation, Inc.



General NSABP Information
  Financial Conflicts of
     Interest Policy
  Coalition Comment:
     Reconfiguration
  IOM Report Group Comment
  Contact the NSABP
  Pathology Section
  Future Meetings
  NSABP Newsletters
  Media Info on STAR
  Employment

Clinical Trials Information
  Clinical Trials Overview
  Protocol Chart
  Never Say Lost

Treatment Trials Information
  Protocol B-43
  Protocol B-47
  Protocol B-51

Prevention Trials Information
  Protocol P-1 - BCPT
  Protocol P-2 - STAR
  Protocol P-5
  BreastCancerPrevention.com

Scientific Publications

Related Web Sites



Medical Search Engines



To report problems, ask
questions or make comments,
please send e-mail to:
Webmaster@nsabp.pitt.edu

Annotated Bibliography of NSABP Publications


Validation Studies for Models Projecting the Risk of Invasive and Total Breast Cancer Incidence
Costantino JP, Gail MH, Pee D, Anderson S, Redmond CK, Benichou J, Wieand HS
Journal of the National Cancer Institute 91(18):1541-8, September 15, 1999

Abstract
Background: In 1989, Gail and colleagues developed a model for estimating the risk of breast cancer in women participating in a program of annual mammographic screening (designated herein as model 1). A modification of this model to project the absolute risk of developing only invasive breast cancer is referred to herein as model 2. We assessed the validity of both models by employing data from women enrolled in the Breast Cancer Prevention Trial.

Methods: We used data from 5969 white women who were at least 35 years of age and without a history of breast cancer. These women were in the placebo arm of the trial and were screened annually. The average follow-up period was 48.4 months. We compared the observed number of breast cancers with the predicted numbers from the models.

Results: In terms of absolute risk, the ratios of total expected to observed numbers of cancers (95% confidence intervals [CIs]) were 0.84 (0.73-0.97) for model 1 and 1.03 (0.88-1.21) for model 2, respectively. Within the age groups of 49 years or less, 50-59 years, and 60 years or more, the ratios of expected to observed numbers of breast cancers (95% CIs) for model 1 were 0.91 (0.73-1.14), 0.96 (0.73-1. 28), and 0.66 (0.52-0.86), respectively. Thus, model 1 underestimated breast cancer risk in women more than 59 years of age. For model 2, the risk ratios (95% CIs) were 0.93 (0.72-1.22), 1.13 (0.83-1.55), and 1.05 (0.80-1.41), respectively. Both models exhibited a tendency to overestimate risk for women classified in the higher quintiles of predicted 5-year risk and to underestimate risk for those in the lower quintiles of the same.

Conclusions: Despite some limitations, these methods provide useful information on breast cancer risk for women who plan to participate in an annual mammographic screening program.

National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, Department of Biostatistics, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, PA.