Comparative validation of the BOADICEA and Tyrer-Cuzick breast cancer risk models incorporating classical risk factors and polygenic risk in a population-based prospective cohort of women of European ancestry

• Main Authors: Parichoy Pal Choudhury, Mark N. Brook, Amber N. Hurson, Andrew Lee, Charlotta V. Mulder, Penny Coulson, Minouk J. Schoemaker, Michael E. Jones, Anthony J. Swerdlow, Nilanjan Chatterjee, Antonis C. Antoniou, Montserrat Garcia-Closas
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: BMC 2021-02-01
• Series: Breast Cancer Research
• Subjects: Absolute risk; BOADICEA; Breast cancer; IBIS; Model validation; Prospective cohort
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-021-01399-7

Abstract Background The Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA) and the Tyrer-Cuzick breast cancer risk prediction models are commonly used in clinical practice and have recently been extended to include polygenic risk scores (PRS). In addition, BOADICEA has also been extended to include reproductive and lifestyle factors, which were already part of Tyrer-Cuzick model. We conducted a comparative prospective validation of these models after incorporating the recently developed 313-variant PRS. Methods Calibration and discrimination of 5-year absolute risk was assessed in a nested case-control sample of 1337 women of European ancestry (619 incident breast cancer cases) aged 23–75 years from the Generations Study. Results The extended BOADICEA model with reproductive/lifestyle factors and PRS was well calibrated across risk deciles; expected-to-observed ratio (E/O) at the highest risk decile :0.97 (95 % CI 0.51 − 1.86) for women younger than 50 years and 1.09 (0.66 − 1.80) for women 50 years or older. Adding reproductive/lifestyle factors and PRS to the BOADICEA model improved discrimination modestly in younger women (area under the curve (AUC) 69.7 % vs. 69.1%) and substantially in older women (AUC 64.6 % vs. 56.8%). The Tyrer-Cuzick model with PRS showed evidence of overestimation at the highest risk decile: E/O = 1.54(0.81 − 2.92) for younger and 1.73 (1.03 − 2.90) for older women. Conclusion The extended BOADICEA model identified women in a European-ancestry population at elevated breast cancer risk more accurately than the Tyrer-Cuzick model with PRS. With the increasing availability of PRS, these analyses can inform choice of risk models incorporating PRS for risk stratified breast cancer prevention among women of European ancestry.