Literature DB >> 17909205

Validity of models for predicting BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations.

Giovanni Parmigiani1, Sining Chen, Edwin S Iversen, Tara M Friebel, Dianne M Finkelstein, Hoda Anton-Culver, Argyrios Ziogas, Barbara L Weber, Andrea Eisen, Kathleen E Malone, Janet R Daling, Li Hsu, Elaine A Ostrander, Leif E Peterson, Joellen M Schildkraut, Claudine Isaacs, Camille Corio, Leoni Leondaridis, Gail Tomlinson, Christopher I Amos, Louise C Strong, Donald A Berry, Jeffrey N Weitzel, Sharon Sand, Debra Dutson, Rich Kerber, Beth N Peshkin, David M Euhus.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Deleterious mutations of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes confer susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancer. At least 7 models for estimating the probabilities of having a mutation are used widely in clinical and scientific activities; however, the merits and limitations of these models are not fully understood.
OBJECTIVE: To systematically quantify the accuracy of the following publicly available models to predict mutation carrier status: BRCAPRO, family history assessment tool, Finnish, Myriad, National Cancer Institute, University of Pennsylvania, and Yale University.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional validation study, using model predictions and BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation status of patients different from those used to develop the models.
SETTING: Multicenter study across Cancer Genetics Network participating centers. PATIENTS: 3 population-based samples of participants in research studies and 8 samples from genetic counseling clinics. MEASUREMENTS: Discrimination between individuals testing positive for a mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 from those testing negative, as measured by the c-statistic, and sensitivity and specificity of model predictions.
RESULTS: The 7 models differ in their predictions. The better-performing models have a c-statistic around 80%. BRCAPRO has the largest c-statistic overall and in all but 2 patient subgroups, although the margin over other models is narrow in many strata. Outside of high-risk populations, all models have high false-negative and false-positive rates across a range of probability thresholds used to refer for mutation testing. LIMITATION: Three recently published models were not included.
CONCLUSIONS: All models identify women who probably carry a deleterious mutation of BRCA1 or BRCA2 with adequate discrimination to support individualized genetic counseling, although discrimination varies across models and populations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17909205      PMCID: PMC2423214          DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-147-7-200710020-00002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  58 in total

1.  Comparison of DNA- and RNA-based methods for detection of truncating BRCA1 mutations.

Authors:  Irene L Andrulis; Hoda Anton-Culver; Jeanne Beck; Betsy Bove; Jeff Boyd; Saundra Buys; Andrew K Godwin; John L Hopper; Frederick Li; Susan L Neuhausen; Hilmi Ozcelik; David Peel; Regina M Santella; Melissa C Southey; Nathalie J van Orsouw; Deon J Venter; Jan Vijg; Alice S Whittemore
Journal:  Hum Mutat       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 4.878

2.  A new scoring system for the chances of identifying a BRCA1/2 mutation outperforms existing models including BRCAPRO.

Authors:  D G R Evans; D M Eccles; N Rahman; K Young; M Bulman; E Amir; A Shenton; A Howell; F Lalloo
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 6.318

3.  Germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 in breast-ovarian families from a breast cancer risk evaluation clinic.

Authors:  A M Martin; M A Blackwood; D Antin-Ozerkis; H A Shih; K Calzone; T A Colligon; S Seal; N Collins; M R Stratton; B L Weber; K L Nathanson
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2001-04-15       Impact factor: 44.544

4.  A general model for the genetic analysis of pedigree data.

Authors:  R C Elston; J Stewart
Journal:  Hum Hered       Date:  1971       Impact factor: 0.444

5.  Impact of BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation testing on psychologic distress in a clinic-based sample.

Authors:  Marc D Schwartz; Beth N Peshkin; Chanita Hughes; David Main; Claudine Isaacs; Caryn Lerman
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2002-01-15       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  Screening for 185delAG in the Ashkenazim.

Authors:  C S Richards; P A Ward; B B Roa; L C Friedman; A A Boyd; G Kuenzli; J K Dunn; S E Plon
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1997-05       Impact factor: 11.025

7.  Genetic heterogeneity and penetrance analysis of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in breast cancer families. The Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium.

Authors:  D Ford; D F Easton; M Stratton; S Narod; D Goldgar; P Devilee; D T Bishop; B Weber; G Lenoir; J Chang-Claude; H Sobol; M D Teare; J Struewing; A Arason; S Scherneck; J Peto; T R Rebbeck; P Tonin; S Neuhausen; R Barkardottir; J Eyfjord; H Lynch; B A Ponder; S A Gayther; M Zelada-Hedman
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 11.025

8.  BRCA1 mutations and breast cancer in the general population: analyses in women before age 35 years and in women before age 45 years with first-degree family history.

Authors:  K E Malone; J R Daling; J D Thompson; C A O'Brien; L V Francisco; E A Ostrander
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1998-03-25       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Characteristics of BRCA1 mutations in a population-based case series of breast and ovarian cancer.

Authors:  H Anton-Culver; P F Cohen; M E Gildea; A Ziogas
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 9.162

10.  American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement update: genetic testing for cancer susceptibility.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2003-04-11       Impact factor: 44.544

View more
  35 in total

1.  Prediction of BRCA Mutations Using the BRCAPRO Model in Clinic-Based African American, Hispanic, and Other Minority Families in the United States.

Authors:  Dezheng Huo; Ruby T Senie; Mary Daly; Saundra S Buys; Shelly Cummings; Jacqueline Ogutha; Kisha Hope; Olufunmilayo I Olopade
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-02-02       Impact factor: 44.544

2.  Comparison between CaGene 5.1 and 6.0 for BRCA1/2 mutation prediction: a retrospective study of 150 BRCA1/2 genetic tests in 517 families with breast/ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Ivana Antonucci; Martina Provenzano; Luca Sorino; Michela Balsamo; Gitana Maria Aceto; Pasquale Battista; David Euhus; Ettore Cianchetti; Patrizia Ballerini; Clara Natoli; Giandomenico Palka; Liborio Stuppia
Journal:  J Hum Genet       Date:  2016-12-08       Impact factor: 3.172

3.  Underestimation of risk of a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation in women with high-grade serous ovarian cancer by BRCAPRO: a multi-institution study.

Authors:  Molly S Daniels; Sheri A Babb; Robin H King; Diana L Urbauer; Brittany A L Batte; Amanda C Brandt; Christopher I Amos; Adam H Buchanan; David G Mutch; Karen H Lu
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-03-17       Impact factor: 44.544

4.  Simpson's paradox in the integrated discrimination improvement.

Authors:  J Chipman; D Braun
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2016-01-05       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 5.  The contribution of breast cancer pathology to statistical models to predict mutation risk in BRCA carriers.

Authors:  Ana Cristina Vargas; Leonard Da Silva; Sunil R Lakhani
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 2.375

6.  Practical implementation of frailty models in Mendelian risk prediction.

Authors:  Theodore Huang; Malka Gorfine; Li Hsu; Giovanni Parmigiani; Danielle Braun
Journal:  Genet Epidemiol       Date:  2020-06-07       Impact factor: 2.135

Review 7.  Pathogenesis, prevention, diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer.

Authors:  Rupen Shah; Kelly Rosso; S David Nathanson
Journal:  World J Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-08-10

8.  A two-stage approach to genetic risk assessment in primary care.

Authors:  Swati Biswas; Philamer Atienza; Jonathan Chipman; Amanda L Blackford; Banu Arun; Kevin Hughes; Giovanni Parmigiani
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2016-01-19       Impact factor: 4.872

Review 9.  Prevention of breast cancer in postmenopausal women: approaches to estimating and reducing risk.

Authors:  Steven R Cummings; Jeffrey A Tice; Scott Bauer; Warren S Browner; Jack Cuzick; Elad Ziv; Victor Vogel; John Shepherd; Celine Vachon; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2009-03-10       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  Development and validation of a simple questionnaire for the identification of hereditary breast cancer in primary care.

Authors:  Patricia Ashton-Prolla; Juliana Giacomazzi; Aishameriane V Schmidt; Fernanda L Roth; Edenir I Palmero; Luciane Kalakun; Ernestina S Aguiar; Susana M Moreira; Erica Batassini; Vanessa Belo-Reyes; Lavinia Schuler-Faccini; Roberto Giugliani; Maira Caleffi; Suzi Alves Camey
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2009-08-14       Impact factor: 4.430

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.