Articles Vol. 67 No. CĐ8-NCKH 06/07/2026

BREAST CANCER RISK PREDICTION MODELS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Tran Thi Thanh Huong1,2,3,4, Nguyen Huong Giang1,2,3,4, Do Vu Minh Ha1,2,3,4, Bui Thi Oanh1,2,3,4, Pham Tuong Van2,4
1 National Cancer Institute, K Hospital
2 Institute of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Hanoi Medical University
3 Viện Ung thư Quốc gia, Bệnh viện K
4 Viện Đào tạo Y học dự phòng và Y tế công cộng, Trường Đại học Y Hà Nội
DOI: 10.52163/yhc.v67iCD8.5709
24 Views
0 Downloads
Abstract

In Vietnam, breast cancer ranks as the leading malignancy among women, underscoring the importance of developing accurate risk prediction tools to facilitate screening and early diagnosis. Objective: To review breast cancer risk prediction models developed worldwide and propose a suitable model for the Vietnamese context. Methods: Models were evaluated based on AUC, sensitivity, specificity, and risk of bias assessed by the PROBAST tool. Meta-analysis using a random-effects approach was conducted to pool AUC estimates across studies. Results: Eighteen models were identified, five of which had undergone external validation, using up to 19 predictors and sample sizes ranging from 222 to 1,455,493 participants. AUC values ranged from 0.46 to 0.80; traditional models (Gail, IBIS, BCSC, Rosner–Colditz) achieved AUCs of 0.55–0.70, while BRCAPRO and AI/deep learning models reached 0.70–0.80. The pooled AUC was 0.65 (95% CI: 0.63–0.68; I² = 97.5%). Traditional models showed lower risk of bias than AI-based models per PROBAST. Conclusion: The Gail model is a feasible initial option for Vietnam given its simplicity, but requires local adaptation and validation.

References
[1]
Cancer (IARC) T.I.A. for R. on Global Cancer Observatory. https://gco.iarc.fr/, accessed: 01/11/2022. Google Scholar
[2]
Zheng Y., Li J., Wu Z., et al. (2022). Risk prediction models for breast cancer: a systematic review. BMJ Open, 12(7), e055398. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-055398 Google Scholar
[3]
Gail M.H., Brinton L.A., Byar D.P., et al. (1989). Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst, 81(24), 1879–1886. doi: 10.1093/jnci/81.24.1879 Google Scholar
[4]
Colditz G.A. and Rosner B. (2000). Cumulative risk of breast cancer to age 70 years according to risk factor status: data from the Nurses' Health Study. Am J Epidemiol, 152(10), 950–964. doi: 10.1093/aje/152.10.950 Google Scholar
[5]
Maas P., Barrdahl M., Joshi A.D., et al. (2016). Breast Cancer Risk From Modifiable and Nonmodifiable Risk Factors Among White Women in the United States. JAMA Oncol, 2(10), 1295–1302. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.1025 Google Scholar
[6]
Lee A., Mavaddat N., Wilcox A.N., et al. (2019). BOADICEA: a comprehensive breast cancer risk prediction model incorporating genetic and nongenetic risk factors. Genet Med, 21(8), 1708–1718. doi: 10.1038/s41436-018-0406-9 Google Scholar
[7]
Tice J.A., Bissell M.C.S., Miglioretti D.L., et al. (2019). Validation of the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium Model of Breast Cancer Risk. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 175(2), 519–523. doi: 10.1007/s10549-019-05167-4 Google Scholar
[8]
Wolff RF, Moons KGM, Riley RD, et al. (2019). PROBAST: A Tool to Assess the Risk of Bias and Applicability of Prediction Model Studies. Ann Intern Med, 170(1), 51–58. doi: 10.7326/M18-1376 Google Scholar