Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines often use predicted lifetime risk from birth to define criteria for making decisions regarding breast cancer screening rather than thresholds based on absolute 5-year risk from current age. METHODS: We used the Prospective Family Cohort Study of 14 657 women without breast cancer at baseline in which, during a median follow-up of 10 years, 482 women were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer. We examined the performances of the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study (IBIS) and Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA) risk models when using the alternative thresholds by comparing predictions based on 5-year risk with those based on lifetime risk from birth and remaining lifetime risk. All statistical tests were 2-sided. RESULTS: Using IBIS, the areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curves were 0.66 (95% confidence interval = 0.63 to 0.68) and 0.56 (95% confidence interval = 0.54 to 0.59) for 5-year and lifetime risks, respectively (Pdiff < .001). For equivalent sensitivities, the 5-year incidence almost always had higher specificities than lifetime risk from birth. For women aged 20-39 years, 5-year risk performed better than lifetime risk from birth. For women aged 40 years or older, receiver-operating characteristic curves were similar for 5-year and lifetime IBIS risk from birth. Classifications based on remaining lifetime risk were inferior to 5-year risk estimates. Results were similar using BOADICEA. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis shows that risk stratification using clinical models will likely be more accurate when based on predicted 5-year risk compared with risks based on predicted lifetime and remaining lifetime, particularly for women aged 20-39 years.