Skip to main content

Table 2 Characteristics of the included studies for estimating the discrimination of the Gail model

From: Assessment of performance of the Gail model for predicting breast cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

Reference

Author

Publication year

Geographic background

Study design

Gail model version

5/10-year risk

Sample size

Mean age (years)

Study population

Risk for breast cancera

Time period

Follow-up period

C-statistic/AUC (95% CI)

[11]

Rockhill

2001

America

Cohort

2

5

82,109

45–71

Nurses’ Health Study (NHS)

General population

1992–1997

5.0

0.58 (0.56–0.60)

[30]

Amir

2003

United Kingdom

Cohort

2

10

3150

21–73

Women attending the Family History Screening Programme in University Hospital of South Manchester

Not defined

1987–2001

5.0

0.74 (0.67–0.80)

[21]

Tice

2005

America

Cohort

2

5

81,777

55.9

Community-based registry San Francisco Mammography Registry (SFMR)

General population

1993–2002

5.1 (0.1–15)

0.67 (0.65–0.68)

[29]

Decarli

2006

Italy

Cohort

2

5

10,031

35–64

Florence—European Prospective Investigation Into Cancer and Nutrition cohort (EPIC)

General population

1993–2002

9.0

0.59 (0.55–0.63)

[36]

Crispo

2008

Italy

Case–control

1

5

1765

53.7

National Cancer Institute of Naples (southern Italy)

NA

1997–2000

NA

0.55 (0.53–0.58)

[15]

Tice

2008

America

Cohort

2

5

251,789

40–74

National Cancer Institute-funded Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC)

General population

since 1994

5.3

0.61 (0.60–0.62)

[42]

Pan

2009

China

Cross-sectional

1

5

2133

> 35

Breast cancer risk assessment, evaluation and health education program, in Beijing and Guangzhou community

NA

2006–2007

NA

0.64 (0.61–0.67)

[43]

Liu

2010

China

Cross-sectional

2

5

246

49.82

High-risk breast cancer screening model and chemical intervention study at the community level

NA

2007–2009

NA

0.56 (0.49–0.64)

[44]

Wang

2010

China

Case–control

1

5

228

32–75

Shenzhou Hospital of Shenyang Medical College-based breast cancer cases and control

NA

1998–2007

NA

0.93 (0.89–0.97)

[17]

Tarabishy

2011

America

Cohort

2

5

4726

18–85

Mayo Benign Breast Disease (BBD)

High risk

1982–1991

16.2

0.64 (0.62–0.66)

[22]

Vacek

2011

America

Cohort

1

5

19,779

> 70

Vermont Breast Cancer Surveillance System (VBCSS)

High risk

2001–2009

7.1

0.54 (0.52–0.56)

[27]

Banegas

2012

America

Cohort

2

5

128,976

63.51

Women’s Health Initiative (WHI)

General population

1993–2005

5.0

0.58 (0.57–0.59)

[23]

Quante

2012

America

Cohort

2

10

1857

44

Women with high risk for breast or ovarian cancer in New York site of the Breast Cancer Family Registry (BCFR)

High risk

1995–2011

8.1

0.63 (0.58–0.69)

[32]

Pastor-Barriuso

2013

Spain

Cohort

2

5

54,649

45–68

Population-based Navarre Breast Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP)

General population

1996–2005

7.7

0.54 (0.52–0.57)

[51]

Dite

2013

Australia

Case–control

2

5

1425

45.4

Cases and controls from the Australian Breast Cancer Family Registry (ABCFR)

NA

1992–1998

NA

0.58 (0.55–0.61)

[40]

Anothaisintawee

2013

Thailand

Cross-sectional

NA

NA

15,718

NA

Ramathibodi Hospital and two tertiary hospitals

NA

2011–2013

NA

0.41 (0.36–0.46)

[24]

Ronser

2013

America

Cohort

2

5

11,419

54.0 ± 3.3

Postmenopausal women in California Teachers Study (CTS)

High risk

1995–2009

5.0

0.55 (0.53–0.56)

[41]

Min-1

2014

Korea

Cohort

2

5

40,229

> 10

Breast cancer screening patients routinely screened in Women’s Healthcare Center of Cheil General Hospital

Not defined

1999–2004

5

0.55 (0.50–0.59)

[41]

Min-2

2014

Korea

Cohort

3

5

40,229

> 10

Breast cancer screening patients routinely screened in Women’s Healthcare Center of Cheil General Hospital

Not defined

1999–2004

5

0.54 (0.50–0.59)

[18]

Powell

2014

America

Cohort

2

5

12,843

NA

Marin Women’s Study with high rate of breast cancer, null parity and delayed childbirth

High risk

2003–2007

7.7

0.62 (0.59–0.66)

[45]

Duan

2014

China

Case–control

2

5

400

35–74

Breast cancer cases and controls in the First Affiliate Hospital of KunMing Medical University

NA

2007–2011

NA

0.54 (0.49–0.60)

[19]

McCarthy

2015

America

Cohort

2

5

464

48.7 ± 13

Women referred for biopsy with abnormal (Breast Imaging Reporting And Data System, BI-RADS 4) mammograms at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania

High risk

2003–2012

5.0

0.71 (0.65–0.78)

[34]

Dartois-1

2015

France

Cohort

2

5

5843

42–72

Premenopausal Women in French E3N (E´ tude E´ pide´miologique aupre`s des femmes de laMutuelle Ge´ne´rale de l’E´ ducation Nationale (MGEN)) prospective cohort to investigate the cancer risk factors

General population

1993–1998

5.0

0.61 (0.55–0.68)

[34]

Dartois-2

2015

France

Cohort

2

5

7331

42–72

Postmenopausal Women in French E3N (E´ tude E´ pide´miologique aupre`s des femmes de laMutuelle Ge´ne´rale de l’E´ ducation Nationale (MGEN)) prospective cohort to investigate the cancer risk factors

High risk

1993–1998

14.0

0.55 (0.50–0.60)

[39]

Hu

2015

China

Cohort

2

5

42,908

35–69

Women participated in the breast cancer screening in Zhejiang eastern coastal areas of China

General population

2008–2014

5.0

0.59 (0.47–0.70)

[35]

Brentnall

2015

United Kingdom

Cohort

2

10

50,628

47–73

15 screening areas in Greater Manchester, UK

General population

2009–2014

3.2

0.54 (0.52–0.56)

[20]

Schonberg-1

2015

America

Cohort

2

5

71,293

70.0 ± 7.0

Nurses’ Health Study (NHS)

High risk

2004–2009

5.0

0.57 (0.55–0.58)

[20]

Schonberg-2

2015

America

Cohort

2

5

79,611

71.0 ± 6.8

Women’s Health Initiative (WHI), extensive study

High risk

2005–2010

5.0

0.58 (0.56–0.59)

[46]

Rong

2016

China

Case–control

1

5

816

48.9

Breast cancer cases and controls in the Shenzhen Maternal and Child Health Care hospital

NA

2011–2013

NA

0.69 (0.68–0.71)

  1. Note: Gail model type 1, original Gail model; Gail model type 2, modified Gail model for Caucasian-American; Gail model type 3, modified Gail model for Asian-American
  2. AUC area under the area under the curve, CI confidence interval, NA not available
  3. aCohort studies enrolled women with high risk for breast cancer (with higher average age (> 70 years), abnormal breast density, postmenopausal state, breast cancer relatives or high rate of delayed childbirth) were defined as “High risk”; cohort studies that did not accurately depict the characteristics of the participants were defined as “Not defined”. Case–control studies and cross-sectional studies were defined as not available