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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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