METHODS: We built two models, for ER+ (ModelER+) and ER- tumors (ModelER-), respectively, in 281,330 women (51% postmenopausal at recruitment) from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition cohort. Discrimination (C-statistic) and calibration (the agreement between predicted and observed tumor risks) were assessed both internally and externally in 82,319 postmenopausal women from the Women's Health Initiative study. We performed decision curve analysis to compare ModelER+ and the Gail model (ModelGail) regarding their applicability in risk assessment for chemoprevention.
RESULTS: Parity, number of full-term pregnancies, age at first full-term pregnancy and body height were only associated with ER+ tumors. Menopausal status, age at menarche and at menopause, hormone replacement therapy, postmenopausal body mass index, and alcohol intake were homogeneously associated with ER+ and ER- tumors. Internal validation yielded a C-statistic of 0.64 for ModelER+ and 0.59 for ModelER-. External validation reduced the C-statistic of ModelER+ (0.59) and ModelGail (0.57). In external evaluation of calibration, ModelER+ outperformed the ModelGail: the former led to a 9% overestimation of the risk of ER+ tumors, while the latter yielded a 22% underestimation of the overall BC risk. Compared with the treat-all strategy, ModelER+ produced equal or higher net benefits irrespective of the benefit-to-harm ratio of chemoprevention, while ModelGail did not produce higher net benefits unless the benefit-to-harm ratio was below 50. The clinical applicability, i.e. the area defined by the net benefit curve and the treat-all and treat-none strategies, was 12.7 × 10- 6 for ModelER+ and 3.0 × 10- 6 for ModelGail.
CONCLUSIONS: Modeling heterogeneous epidemiological risk factors might yield little improvement in BC risk prediction. Nevertheless, a model specifically predictive of ER+ tumor risk could be more applicable than an omnibus model in risk assessment for chemoprevention.
METHODS: We analysed data from 264,906 European adults from the EPIC prospective cohort study, aged between 40 and 70 years at the time of recruitment. Flexible parametric survival models were used to model risk of death conditional on risk factors, and survival functions and attributable fractions (AF) for deaths prior to age 70 years were calculated based on the fitted models.
RESULTS: We identified 11,930 deaths which occurred before the age of 70. The AF for premature mortality for smoking was 31 % (95 % confidence interval (CI), 31-32 %) and 14 % (95 % CI, 12-16 %) for poor diet. Important contributions were also observed for overweight and obesity measured by waist-hip ratio (10 %; 95 % CI, 8-12 %) and high blood pressure (9 %; 95 % CI, 7-11 %). AFs for physical inactivity and excessive alcohol intake were 7 % and 4 %, respectively. Collectively, the AF for all six risk factors was 57 % (95 % CI, 55-59 %), being 35 % (95 % CI, 32-37 %) among never smokers and 74 % (95 % CI, 73-75 %) among current smokers.
CONCLUSIONS: While smoking remains the predominant risk factor for premature death in Europe, poor diet, overweight and obesity, hypertension, physical inactivity, and excessive alcohol consumption also contribute substantially. Any attempt to minimise premature deaths will ultimately require all six factors to be addressed.
METHODS: This study was conducted within the European Prospective Investigation into Nutrition and Cancer cohort, comprising male and female participants from 10 European countries. Between 1992 and 2000, there were 477,312 participants without cancer who completed a dietary questionnaire and were followed up to determine pancreatic cancer incidence. Coffee and tea intake was calibrated with a 24-hour dietary recall. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were computed using multivariable Cox regression.
RESULTS: During a mean follow-up period of 11.6 y, 865 first incidences of pancreatic cancers were reported. When divided into fourths, neither total intake of coffee (HR, 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83-1.27; high vs low intake), decaffeinated coffee (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.76-1.63; high vs low intake), nor tea were associated with risk of pancreatic cancer (HR, 1.22, 95% CI, 0.95-1.56; high vs low intake). Moderately low intake of caffeinated coffee was associated with an increased risk of pancreatic cancer (HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.02-1.74), compared with low intake. However, no graded dose response was observed, and the association attenuated after restriction to histologically confirmed pancreatic cancers.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on an analysis of data from the European Prospective Investigation into Nutrition and Cancer cohort, total coffee, decaffeinated coffee, and tea consumption are not related to the risk of pancreatic cancer.