3. The Genetic Individual Variant Yielded an AUC of 59.7%
4. The Genetic Variant Count Yielded an AUC of 58.8%
5. Breast Biopsy BY ITSELF Yielded an AUC of 56.2%
That is a 3.8% difference in Yield from Genes and without Genes integrated into the weaker Gail Model.
Lastly, they asked. Well, does this Inclusive Model do a good job of discrimination of High risk vs. low risk.
The Answer- It determines lower risk better than Gail. It does not determine higher risk better.
The authors of this study have stated that
"As in Diabetes and cardiovascular disease, the addition of the common SNPs added little to the predictive value of the clinical models. On the basis of theoretical models, Gail has shown that increases in the AUC similar to those observed here and not sufficiently large to improve meaningfully the identification of women who might benefit from tamoxifen prophylaxis or screening mammography"
The addition of these factors only creates a minimal statistical increase that is of no useful clinical benefit.
The Sherpa Says: If the press says "gene tests fail to improve risk assessment" You can be assured that the DTCG industry is no longer the darlings. If instead they say "Improvement in risk model" well, then you have chance to woo them back ! It Depends.......