Left ventricular dimensions and cardiovascular outcomes in systolic heart failure: the WARCEF trial.

AIMS: There is limited information on the association between left ventricular (LV) dimensions and cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced LV ejection fraction (HFrEF) receiving recommended HF treatment. We investigated the association between LV dimensions and CV outcomes in HFrEF patients receiving recommended HF treatment. METHODS AND RESULTS: We investigated the association between LV echocardiographic dimensions and CV outcomes using conventional Cox models in 1138 HFrEF patients in sinus rhythm randomized to warfarin or aspirin treatment in the Warfarin vs. Aspirin in Reduced Cardiac Ejection Fraction (WARCEF) trial. LV enlargement, whether by diameter [LV end-diastolic diameter index (LVEDDI) and LV end-systolic diameter index (LVESDI)] or volume [LV end-diastolic volume index (LVEDVI) and LV end-systolic volume index (LVESVI)], was independently associated with all-cause death [LVEDDI: hazard ratio (HR) per cm/m2 1.53, LVESDI: HR per cm/m2 1.65, LVEDVI: HR per 10 mL/m2 1.07, and LVESVI: HR per 10 mL/m2 1.10; all P values < 0.001], CV death (HR 1.68, 1.79, 1.09, and 1.12, respectively; all P values < 0.001), and HF hospitalization (HR 1.59, 1.79, 1.06, and 1.08, respectively; all P values < 0.001). No association was observed with myocardial infarction or stroke. The associations were independent of LV ejection fraction values, and incremental to them. LV volumes conferred additional predictive value over LV diameters. CONCLUSIONS: Left ventricular enlargement is an independent predictor of CV events in patients with HFrEF and recommended HF treatment. LV dimensions should be considered in the risk assessment.

Comparing 5-Year and Lifetime Risks of Breast Cancer using the Prospective Family Study Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines often use predicted lifetime risk from birth to define criteria for making decisions regarding breast cancer screening rather than thresholds based on absolute 5-year risk from current age. METHODS: We used the Prospective Family Cohort Study of 14 657 women without breast cancer at baseline in which, during a median follow-up of 10 years, 482 women were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer. We examined the performances of the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study (IBIS) and Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA) risk models when using the alternative thresholds by comparing predictions based on 5-year risk with those based on lifetime risk from birth and remaining lifetime risk. All statistical tests were 2-sided. RESULTS: Using IBIS, the areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curves were 0.66 (95% confidence interval = 0.63 to 0.68) and 0.56 (95% confidence interval = 0.54 to 0.59) for 5-year and lifetime risks, respectively (Pdiff < .001). For equivalent sensitivities, the 5-year incidence almost always had higher specificities than lifetime risk from birth. For women aged 20-39 years, 5-year risk performed better than lifetime risk from birth. For women aged 40 years or older, receiver-operating characteristic curves were similar for 5-year and lifetime IBIS risk from birth. Classifications based on remaining lifetime risk were inferior to 5-year risk estimates. Results were similar using BOADICEA. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis shows that risk stratification using clinical models will likely be more accurate when based on predicted 5-year risk compared with risks based on predicted lifetime and remaining lifetime, particularly for women aged 20-39 years.

Considerations When Using Breast Cancer Risk Models for Women with Negative BRCA1/BRCA2 Mutation Results.

The performance of breast cancer risk models for women with a family history but negative BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutation test results is uncertain. We calculated the cumulative 10-year invasive breast cancer risk at cohort entry for 14 657 unaffected women (96.1% had an affected relative) not known to carry BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations at baseline using three pedigree-based models (Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm, BRCAPRO, and International Breast Cancer Intervention Study). During follow-up, 482 women were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer. Mutation testing was conducted independent of incident cancers. All models underpredicted risk by 26.3%-56.7% for women who tested negative but whose relatives had not been tested (n = 1363; 63 breast cancers). Although replication studies with larger sample sizes are needed, until these models are recalibrated for women who test negative and have no relatives tested, caution should be used when considering changing the breast cancer risk management intensity of such women based on risk estimates from these models.

Accuracy of Risk Estimates from the iPrevent Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Management Tool.

BACKGROUND: iPrevent is an online breast cancer (BC) risk management decision support tool. It uses an internal switching algorithm, based on a woman's risk factor data, to estimate her absolute BC risk using either the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study (IBIS) version 7.02, or Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm version 3 models, and then provides tailored risk management information. This study assessed the accuracy of the 10-year risk estimates using prospective data. METHODS: iPrevent-assigned 10-year invasive BC risk was calculated for 15 732 women aged 20-70 years and without BC at recruitment to the Prospective Family Study Cohort. Calibration, the ratio of the expected (E) number of BCs to the observed (O) number and discriminatory accuracy were assessed. RESULTS: During the 10 years of follow-up, 619 women (3.9%) developed BC compared with 702 expected (E/O = 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI] =1.05 to 1.23). For women younger than 50 years, 50 years and older, and BRCA1/2-mutation carriers and noncarriers, E/O was 1.04 (95% CI = 0.93 to 1.16), 1.24 (95% CI = 1.11 to 1.39), 1.13 (95% CI = 0.96 to 1.34), and 1.13 (95% CI = 1.04 to 1.24), respectively. The C-statistic was 0.70 (95% CI = 0.68 to 0.73) overall and 0.74 (95% CI = 0.71 to 0.77), 0.63 (95% CI = 0.59 to 0.66), 0.59 (95% CI = 0.53 to 0.64), and 0.65 (95% CI = 0.63 to 0.68), respectively, for the subgroups above. Applying the newer IBIS version 8.0b in the iPrevent switching algorithm improved calibration overall (E/O = 1.06, 95% CI = 0.98 to 1.15) and in all subgroups, without changing discriminatory accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: For 10-year BC risk, iPrevent had good discriminatory accuracy overall and was well calibrated for women aged younger than 50 years. Calibration may be improved in the future by incorporating IBIS version 8.0b.

10-year performance of four models of breast cancer risk: a validation study.

BACKGROUND: Independent validation is essential to justify use of models of breast cancer risk prediction and inform decisions about prevention options and screening. Few independent validations had been done using cohorts for common breast cancer risk prediction models, and those that have been done had small sample sizes and short follow-up periods, and used earlier versions of the prediction tools. We aimed to validate the relative performance of four commonly used models of breast cancer risk and assess the effect of limited data input on each one's performance. METHODS: In this validation study, we used the Breast Cancer Prospective Family Study Cohort (ProF-SC), which includes 18 856 women from Australia, Canada, and the USA who did not have breast cancer at recruitment, between March 17, 1992, and June 29, 2011. We selected women from the cohort who were 20-70 years old and had no previous history of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy or ovarian cancer, at least 2 months of follow-up data, and information available about family history of breast cancer. We used this selected cohort to calculate 10-year risk scores and compare four models of breast cancer risk prediction: the Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm model (BOADICEA), BRCAPRO, the Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRAT), and the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study model (IBIS). We compared model calibration based on the ratio of the expected number of breast cancer cases to the observed number of breast cancer cases in the cohort, and on the basis of their discriminatory ability to separate those who will and will not have breast cancer diagnosed within 10 years as measured with the concordance statistic (C-statistic). We did subgroup analyses to compare the performance of the models at 10 years in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers (ie, BRCA-positive women), tested non-carriers and untested participants (ie, BRCA-negative women), and participants younger than 50 years at recruitment. We also assessed the effect that limited data input (eg, restriction of the amount of family history and non-genetic information included) had on the models' performance. FINDINGS: After median follow-up of 11·1 years (IQR 6·0-14·4), 619 (4%) of 15 732 women selected from the ProF-SC cohort study were prospectively diagnosed with breast cancer after recruitment, of whom 519 (84%) had histologically confirmed disease. BOADICEA and IBIS were well calibrated in the overall validation cohort, whereas BRCAPRO and BCRAT underpredicted risk (ratio of expected cases to observed cases 1·05 [95% CI 0·97-1·14] for BOADICEA, 1·03 [0·96-1·12] for IBIS, 0·59 [0·55-0·64] for BRCAPRO, and 0·79 [0·73-0·85] for BRCAT). The estimated C-statistics for the complete validation cohort were 0·70 (95% CI 0·68-0·72) for BOADICEA, 0·71 (0·69-0·73) for IBIS, 0·68 (0·65-0·70) for BRCAPRO, and 0·60 (0·58-0·62) for BCRAT. In subgroup analyses by BRCA mutation status, the ratio of expected to observed cases for BRCA-negative women was 1·02 (95% CI 0·93-1·12) for BOADICEA, 1·00 (0·92-1·10) for IBIS, 0·53 (0·49-0·58) for BRCAPRO, and 0·97 (0·89-1·06) for BCRAT. For BRCA-positive participants, BOADICEA and IBIS were well calibrated, but BRCAPRO underpredicted risk (ratio of expected to observed cases 1·17 [95% CI 0·99-1·38] for BOADICEA, 1·14 [0·96-1·35] for IBIS, and 0·80 [0·68-0·95] for BRCAPRO). We noted similar patterns of calibration for women younger than 50 years at recruitment. Finally, BOADICEA and IBIS predictive scores were not appreciably affected by limiting input data to family history for first-degree and second-degree relatives. INTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that models that include multigenerational family history, such as BOADICEA and IBIS, have better ability to predict breast cancer risk, even for women at average or below-average risk of breast cancer. Although BOADICEA and IBIS performed similarly, further improvements in the accuracy of predictions could be possible with hybrid models that incorporate the polygenic risk component of BOADICEA and the non-family-history risk factors included in IBIS. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, Breast Cancer Research Foundation, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, Victorian Breast Cancer Research Consortium, Cancer Australia, National Breast Cancer Foundation, Queensland Cancer Fund, Cancer Councils of New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, and South Australia, and Cancer Foundation of Western Australia.

Risk-Reducing Oophorectomy and Breast Cancer Risk Across the Spectrum of Familial Risk.

There remains debate about whether risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO), which reduces ovarian cancer risk, also reduces breast cancer risk. We examined the association between RRSO and breast cancer risk using a prospective cohort of 17 917 women unaffected with breast cancer at baseline (7.2% known carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations). During a median follow-up of 10.7 years, 1046 women were diagnosed with incident breast cancer. Modeling RRSO as a time-varying exposure, there was no association with breast cancer risk overall (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.87 to 1.24) or by tertiles of predicted absolute risk based on family history (HR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.32 to 1.47, HR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.70 to 1.26, and HR = 1.10, 95% CI = 0.88 to 1.39, for lowest, middle, and highest tertile of risk, respectively) or for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers when examined separately. There was also no association after accounting for hormone therapy use after RRSO. These findings suggest that RRSO should not be considered efficacious for reducing breast cancer risk.

Prevalence and risk factors of seizure clusters in adult patients with epilepsy.

PURPOSE: In the current study, we explored the prevalence of physician-confirmed seizure clusters. We also investigated potential clinical factors associated with the occurrence of seizure clusters overall and by epilepsy type. METHODS: We reviewed medical records of 4116 adult (≥16years old) outpatients with epilepsy at our centers for documentation of seizure clusters. Variables including patient demographics, epilepsy details, medical and psychiatric history, AED history, and epilepsy risk factors were then tested against history of seizure clusters. Patients were then divided into focal epilepsy, idiopathic generalized epilepsy (IGE), or symptomatic generalized epilepsy (SGE), and the same analysis was run. RESULTS: Overall, seizure clusters were independently associated with earlier age of seizure onset, symptomatic generalized epilepsy (SGE), central nervous system (CNS) infection, cortical dysplasia, status epilepticus, absence of 1-year seizure freedom, and having failed 2 or more AEDs (P<0.0026). Patients with SGE (27.1%) were more likely to develop seizure clusters than patients with focal epilepsy (16.3%) and IGE (7.4%; all P<0.001). Analysis by epilepsy type showed that absence of 1-year seizure freedom since starting treatment at one of our centers was associated with seizure clustering in patients across all 3 epilepsy types. In patients with SGE, clusters were associated with perinatal/congenital brain injury. In patients with focal epilepsy, clusters were associated with younger age of seizure onset, complex partial seizures, cortical dysplasia, status epilepticus, CNS infection, and having failed 2 or more AEDs. In patients with IGE, clusters were associated with presence of an aura. Only 43.5% of patients with seizure clusters were prescribed rescue medications. CONCLUSION: Patients with intractable epilepsy are at a higher risk of developing seizure clusters. Factors such as having SGE, CNS infection, cortical dysplasia, status epilepticus or an early seizure onset, can also independently increase one's chance of having seizure clusters.