Breast cancer risk in intraductal neoplasms with nipple discharge
Prediction tool to evaluate breast cancer risk in intraductal neoplasms with nipple discharge (c-index: 0.812)
Research authors: Lian ZQ, Wang Q, Zhang AQ, Zhang JY, Han XR, Yu HY et al.
Details Formula Study characteristics Files & References
★★★★
Model author
Model ID
125
Version
1.14
Revision date
2016-06-26
Specialty
MeSH terms
  • Breast Neoplasms
  • Nomograms
  • Nipple Aspirate Fluid
  • Breast
  • Model type
    Logistic regression (Calculation)
    Status
    public
    Rating
    Share
    Formula
    No Formula defined yet
    Condition Formula

    Additional information

    Study population:
    Patients with nipple discharge were examined by MD at Guangdong Women and Children Hospital from June 2008 to April 2014. A total of 879 consecutive inpatients (916 breasts) who underwent selective duct excision for intraductal neoplasms detected by MD were enrolled in this study. Exclusion criteria were: patients without ductoscopic finding of intraductal neoplasms or who did not undergo further biopsy after MD examination.

    Model development: 
    All cases were divided into a training data set (June 2008 to December 2012) and a validation set (January 2013 to April 2014). The training set contained 75% of all cases (687/916), while the validation set contained the other 25% of cases (229/916). The training data were used to establish the nomogram.

    Source: 
    Lian ZQ, Wang Q, Zhang AQ, et al. A nomogram based on mammary ductoscopic indicators for evaluating the risk of breast cancer in intraductal neoplasms with nipple discharge. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;150(2):373-80.

    Study Population

    Total population size: 687
    Males: {{ model.numberOfMales }}
    Females: {{ model.numberOfFemales }}

    Categorical characteristics

    Name Subset / Group Nr. of patients
    Age <40 years 368
    ≥40 years 319
    Color of discharge Bloody 405
    Serous 256
    Watery 26
    Number of discharge duct Single-duct discharge 597
    Multiple duct discharge 90
    Pathological diagnosis Benign disease 600
    Papilloma 546
    Papilloma with atypical ductal hyperplasia 21
    Ductal ectasia or fibrocyst 33
    Breast cancer 87
    Ductal carcinoma in situ 37
    Ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion 22
    Invasive ductal carcinoma 28

    Related files

    Estimated risk of breast cancer:
    ...

    {{ resultSubheader }}

    {{ model.survival.PITTitle }}

    {{ model.survival.YNETitle }}

    Result
    Note
    Notes are only visible in the result download and will not be saved by Evidencio

    Estimated risk of breast cancer:

    {{ resultSubheader }}
    {{ chart.title }}

    Outcome stratification

    Result interval {{ additionalResult.min }} to {{ additionalResult.max }}

    Conditional information

    Result interpretation

    How this model shoud be used: 
    This model aids healthcare professionals to evaluate breast cancer risk in patients with intraductal neoplasms with nipple discharge, and thus improve individual risk evaluation and clinical treatment planning.

    Overall model performance:
    The P-value of the Hosmer-Lemeshow test for the prediction model was 0.36. Area under the ROC curve values (c-indices) of 0.812 (95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.763-0.860) and 0.738 (95 % CI 0.635-0.841) were obtained in the training and validation sets, respectively. The accuracies of the nomogram for breast cancer diagnosis were 71.2 % in the training set and 75.5 % in the validation set.

    Model limitations:
    The underlying study was limited by the relatively small number of cases and bias associated with the retrospective nature of the study. Further prospective studies are therefore needed to validate the suitability of this nomogram for clinical applications.

    Source:
    Lian ZQ, Wang Q, Zhang AQ, et al. A nomogram based on mammary ductoscopic indicators for evaluating the risk of breast cancer in intraductal neoplasms with nipple discharge. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;150(2):373-80.

    {{ file.classification }}

    Calculations alone should never dictate patient care, and are no substitute for professional judgement. See our full disclaimer.

    Comments
    Rating
    Comment
    Please enter a comment of rating
    Comments are visible to anyone

    Model feedback

    No feedback yet 1 Comment {{ model.comments.length }} Comments
    Not rated | On {{ comment.created_at }} {{ comment.user.username }} a no longer registered author wrote:
    logo

    Please sign in to enable Evidencio print features

    In order to use the Evidencio print features, you need to be logged in.
    If you don't have an Evidencio Community Account you can create your free personal account at:

    https://www.evidencio.com/registration

    Printed results - Examples {{ new Date().toLocaleString() }}


    Evidencio Community Account Benefits


    With an Evidencio Community account you can:

    • Create and publish your own prediction models.
    • Share your prediction models with your colleagues, research group, organization or the world.
    • Review and provide feedback on models that have been shared with you.
    • Validate your models and validate models from other users.
    • Find models based on Title, Keyword, Author, Institute, or MeSH classification.
    • Use and save prediction models and their data.
    • Use patient specific protocols and guidelines based on sequential models and decision trees.
    • Stay up-to-date with new models in your field as they are published.
    • Create your own lists of favorite models and topics.
    A personal Evidencio account is free, with no strings attached! Join us and help create clarity, transparency, and efficiency in the creation, validation, and use of medical prediction models.

    Disclaimer: Calculations alone should never dictate patient care, and are no substitute for professional judgement.