Olivia Munn says the Tyrer-Cuzick model saved her and her mom's life — how reliable is it?
Key Takeaways
Industry Buzz
"I cannot tell you how many patients that I see in my clinic that were diagnosed with breast cancer, especially at an earlier age, that would not have been considered high risk based on the Tyrer-Cuzick model." — Eleonora Teplinsky, MD, oncologist
When a celebrity shares a health scare or diagnosis, it often brings medical interventions into the spotlight. For physicians, it also offers a moment to reflect on how you practice.
In a recent Instagram Reel, Eleonora Teplinsky, MD, a board-certified medical oncologist specializing in breast and gynecologic cancers, breaks down the buzz around the Tyrer-Cuzick model—a risk calculator making headlines after Olivia Munn shared how it helped detect hers and her mother's breast cancer diagnoses.
The model is just one piece of a nuanced risk puzzle, as Dr. Teplinsky points out. For oncologists, her take offers a timely reminder: Risk calculators are helpful—but they’re not comprehensive.
The Tyrer-Cuzick model enters the mainstream
The Tyrer-Cuzick model (also called IBIS) estimates a woman’s lifetime risk of developing breast cancer by factoring in personal and family history, reproductive and menstrual history, breast density, and more.
"The idea behind the test is that you input your personal history and your family history, and it generates a lifetime risk of breast cancer," explained Dr. Teplinsky. "If your lifetime risk is greater than 20%, you're considered to be at high risk."
If your score is more than 20%, it's recommended to get supplemental imaging like a breast MRI or ultrasound in addition to your mammogram for breast cancer screening, according to Dr. Teplinsky.
Munn’s story added a real-world example to this guideline: After her own breast cancer diagnosis using the tool, she encouraged her family to calculate their risk as well. Her mother’s elevated score led to an MRI—and a diagnosis. Munn shared on social media that her mom had surgery following the cancer diagnosis and completed chemotherapy.
"I will say that if you have dense breasts, you have a higher risk for breast cancer," Dr. Teplinsky said. "But also, it can make it harder to spot that breast cancer on a mammogram. So even if [you] have dense breast, but your lifetime risk isn't greater than 20%, we still want to have that conversation about supplemental screening."
Important caveats about the Tyrer-Cuzick model
Dr. Teplinsky praises the risk assessment model as a valuable tool to identify high-risk patients who may benefit from supplemental screening.
But she also shares some caveats about the test that are important to remember when evaluating a patient's overall risk.
"I cannot tell you how many patients that I see in my clinic that were diagnosed with breast cancer, especially at an earlier age, that would not have been considered high risk based on the Tyrer-Cuzick model," Dr. Teplinsky said. "So I urge you to use the test with caution."
This underlines a critical point for oncologists: Risk models can offer clinical direction, but they’re not fail-proof. Patients with dense breasts, limited family history, or other non-modeled risk factors may still be at substantial risk.
"I’m one of the caveats—thank you for calling this out," commented Instagram user @hi.its.kirsten. "I was diagnosed with stage 3 breast cancer at the age of 40. I tried the TC assessment tool when it started making headlines to see what it would say for me. It rated me as very low lifetime risk. Agree these tools have their place, but so important to know your normal, be diligent, and advocate for yourself when something doesn’t seem right."
Dr. Teplinsky pointed out that the WISDOM Study is "really looking to personalize breast cancer screening and figure out what breast cancer screening is necessary at what ages and taking all of these factors—and more—into account."
Related: A natural sweetener's potential in breast cancer careWhat this means in practice
Don't let a “low-risk” label delay screening. As Dr. Teplinsky warns, patients who score below 20% may mistakenly think they’re in the clear. Oncologists should proactively reinforce that models are guides—not guarantees.
Use tools to supplement, not replace, clinical judgment. Breast density, reproductive history, and personal medical history can shift risk even if not fully captured by calculators.
Be cautious of one-size-fits-all screening regimens. The WISDOM Study, which Dr. Teplinsky joined as a participant, aims to personalize breast cancer screening based on evolving data, including genetics.
Patient education is key. Encourage patients—especially those with dense breasts or limited knowledge of their family history—to initiate discussions. “If breast cancer risk has not been discussed with you, it does not mean you’re at low risk,” Dr. Teplinsky said.