Gail model underestimates breast cancer risk in Thai population

15Citations
Citations of this article
24Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: The Gail model is the most widely used method for breast cancer risk estimation. This model has been studied and verified for its validity in many groups but there has yet to be a study to validate the Gail model in a Thai population. This study aims to evaluate whether the Gail model can accurately calculate the risk of breast cancer among Thai women. Methods: The subjects were recruited from the Division of Head, Neck, and Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, Siriraj Hospital. The patients attending the division were asked to enroll in the study and complete questionnaires. Gail model scores were then calculated. Relationships between parameters were examined using the Pearson's chi-square test, Fisher's exact test, and independent-samples t-test. Results: There were 514 women recruited. Age, parity, age at first-live birth, and history of atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) were significant risk factors for breast cancer. The 5-year and lifetime risk score for breast cancer calculated by the Gail model were not significantly different between the patient and the control subjects. The proportions of the subjects with lifetime risk ≥20% were significantly higher in breast cancer patients (p=0.049). Conclusion: The Gail model underestimated the risk of breast cancer in Thai women. Calibration of the model is still required before adoption in Thai population.

References Powered by Scopus

This article is free to access.

Get full text
936Citations
311Readers
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Sa-Nguanraksa, D., Sasanakietkul, T., O-Charoenrat, C., Kulprom, A., & O-Charoenrat, P. (2019). Gail model underestimates breast cancer risk in Thai population. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention, 20(8), 2385–2389. https://doi.org/10.31557/APJCP.2019.20.8.2385

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 4

57%

Researcher 2

29%

Lecturer / Post doc 1

14%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 10

83%

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1

8%

Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceut... 1

8%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free