Development and validation of a clinical prediction rule to identify suspected breast cancer: a prospective cohort study

BMC Cancer

Arnold K Hill¹  Tom Fahey²  Fiona Boland²  Eithne Downey¹  Doireann Joyce¹  Rose Galvin² 

[1]Department of Surgery, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin 9, Republic of Ireland

[2]HRB Centre for Primary Care Research, Department of General Practice, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, 123 St. Stephen’s Green, Dublin 2, Republic of Ireland

关键词: Primary care;    Diagnosis;    Breast cancer;   

Others  :  1120997
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2407-14-743

 received in 2014-04-18, accepted in 2014-09-26,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

The number of primary care referrals of women with breast symptoms to symptomatic breast units (SBUs) has increased exponentially in the past decade in Ireland. The aim of this study is to develop and validate a clinical prediction rule (CPR) to identify women with breast cancer so that a more evidence based approach to referral from primary care to these SBUs can be developed.

Methods

We analysed routine data from a prospective cohort of consecutive women reviewed at a SBU with breast symptoms. The dataset was split into a derivation and validation cohort. Regression analysis was used to derive a CPR from the patient’s history and clinical findings. Validation of the CPR consisted of estimating the number of breast cancers predicted to occur compared with the actual number of observed breast cancers across deciles of risk.

Results

A total of 6,590 patients were included in the derivation study and 4.9% were diagnosed with breast cancer. Independent clinical predictors for breast cancer were: increasing age by year (adjusted odds ratio 1.08, 95% CI 1.07-1.09); presence of a lump (5.63, 95% CI 4.2-7.56); nipple change (2.77, 95% CI 1.68-4.58) and nipple discharge (2.09, 95% CI 1.1-3.97). Validation of the rule (n = 911) demonstrated that the probability of breast cancer was higher with an increasing number of these independent variables. The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit showed no overall significant difference between the expected and the observed numbers of breast cancer (χ²_HL: 6.74, p-value: 0.56).

Conclusions

This study derived and validated a CPR for breast cancer in women attending an Irish national SBU. We found that increasing age, presence of a lump, nipple discharge and nipple change are all associated with increased risk of breast cancer. Further validation of the rule is necessary as well as an assessment of its impact on referral practice.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Galvin et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]National Cancer Registry Ireland: Breast Cancer Incidence, Mortality, Treatment and Survival in Ireland: 1994–2009. Cork; 2012.
• [2]Mutrie N, Campbell AM, Whyte F, Mcconnachie A, Emslie C, Lee L, Kearney N, Walker A, Ritchie D: Benefits of supervised group exercise programme for women being treated for early stage breast cancer: pragmatic randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2007, 334:517.
• [3]Burckhardt CS, Jones KD: Effects of chronic widespread pain on the health status and quality of life of women after breast cancer surgery. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2005, 3:30. BioMed Central Full Text
• [4]Department of Health and Children: National Quality Assurance Standards for Symptomatic Breast Disease Services - Developing Quality Care for Breast Services in Ireland. Dublin; 2007.
• [5]O’Rourke N: Review of Referral Patterns and Triage Processes in Symptomatic Breast Units. A hospital perspective. Dublin: National Cancer Control Programme; 2012.
• [6]McGinn T, Guyatt G, Wyer P, Naylor C, Stiell I, Richardson W: Users’ guides to the medical literature: XXII: how to use articles about clinical decision rules. JAMA 2000, 284:79-84.
• [7]Keogh C, Wallace E, O’Brien K, Murphy P, Teljeur C, McGrath B, Smith SM, Doherty N, Dimitrov BD, Fahey T: Optimized retrieval of primary care clinical prediction rules from MEDLINE to establish a Web-based register. J Clin Epidemiol 2011, 64(8):848-860.
• [8]McCowan C, Donnan P, Dewar J, Thompson A, Fahey T: Identifying suspected breast cancer: development and validation of a clinical prediction rule. Br J Gen Pract 2011, 61(586):e205-e214.
• [9]von Elm E, Altman D, Egger M, Pocock S, Gøtzsche P, Vandenbroucke J, STROBE-Initiative: The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2008, 64(4):344-349.
• [10]Sullivan L, Massaro J, D’Agostino RS: Presentation of multivariate data for clinical use: The Framingham Study risk score functions. Stat Med 2004, 23(10):1631-1660.
• [11]Hosmer D, Hosmer T, Le Cessie S, Lemeshow S: A comparison of goodness-of-fit tests for the logistic regression model. Stat Med 1997, 16(9):965-980.
• [12]Swets J: Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science 1998, 240(4857):1285-1293.
• [13]Okazaki A, Hirata K, Okazaki M, Svane G, Azavedo E: Nipple discharge disorders: current diagnostic management and the role of fiber-ductoscopy. Eur Radiol 1999, 9(4):583-590.
• [14]Reeves M, Osuch J, Pathak D: Development of a clinical decision rule for triage of women with palpable breast masses. J Clin Epidemiol 2003, 56(7):636-645.
• [15]Campbell C, Durning P, Cheema I, Naisby G: A simple tool for rapid access to a symptomatic breast clinic. Eur J Surg Oncol 2004, 30(3):248-251.
• [16]Hippisley-Cox J, Coupland C: Symptoms and risk factors to identify women with suspected breast cancer in primary care: derivation and validation of an algorithm. Br J Gen Pract 2013, 63(606):e11-e21.
• [17]Barton M, Elmore J, Fletcher S: Breast symptoms among women enrolled in a health maintenance organization: frequency, evaluation, and outcome. Ann Intern Med 1999, 130(8):651-657.
• [18]Khawaja A, Allan S: Has the breast cancer ‘two week wait’ guarantee for assessment made any difference? Eur J Surg Oncol 2000, 26(6):536-539.
• [19]Onstad M, Stuckey A: Benign breast disorders. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2013, 40(3):459-473.
• [20]Eberl M, Phillips R, Lamberts H, Okkes I, Mahoney M: Characterizing breast symptoms in family practice. Ann Fam Med 2008, 6(6):528-533.
• [21]Khan S, Apkarian A: The characteristics of cyclical and non-cyclical mastalgia: a prospective study using a modified McGill Pain Questionnaire. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2002, 75(2):147-157.
• [22]Davids S, Schapira M, McAuliffe T, Nattinger A: Predictors of pessimistic breast cancer risk perceptions in a primary care population. J Gen Intern Med 2004, 19(4):310-315.
• [23]Alexander N, Ross J, Sumner W, Nease R, Littenberg B: The effect of an educational intervention on the perceived risk of breast cancer. J Gen Intern Med 1996, 11(2):92-97.
• [24]Newton P, Hannay D, Laver R: The presentation and management of female breast symptoms in general practice in Sheffield. Fam Pract 1999, 16(4):60-65.
• [25]Colditz G, Kaphingst K, Hankinson S, Rosner B: Family history and risk of breast cancer: nurses’ health study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012, 133(3):1097-1104.
• [26]Sauven P: Impact of the “2 week wait” on referrals to breast units in the UK. Breast 2002, 11(3):262-264.
• [27]Potter S, Govindarajulu S, Shere M, Braddon F, Curran G, Greenwood R, Sahu A, Cawthorn S: Referrral patterns, cancer diagnoses and waiting times after introduction of two week wait rule for breast cancer: prospective cohort study. BMJ 2007, 335(7614):288.
• [28]Hamilton W: The CAPER studies: five case–control studies aimed at identifying and quantifying the risk of cancer in symptomatic primary care patients. Br J Cancer 2009, 101(Suppl 2):S80-S86.