Literature DB >> 18097771

Probability estimation models for prediction of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: COS compares favourably with other models.

Hassan Roudgari1, Zosia H Miedzybrodzka, Neva E Haites.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Accurate risk assessment is essential to genetic counselling for a family history of cancer. Several empiric and computer-based risk assessment models have been developed to estimate a counselee's probability of being a carrier of mutation in BRCA1 and/or 2 genes, and to predict the risk of developing breast cancer. The COS model was developed from the better-known BRCAPro model to estimate risk of carriage of BRCA1 or 2 mutation. The COS model remains to be validated in a population discrete from that used for its development.
METHODS: Four probability estimation models including COS, Manchester scoring system (MSS), BOADICEA and Tyrer-Cuzick (T-C) were applied to 275 Scottish families tested for BRCA1/2 mutations ascertained through regional genetics centres to ascertain models' sensitivity, specificity and accuracy. A subset of 130 families from Grampian (North and Northeast Scotland) was used to assess the models' ability to estimate the prevalence of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Sensitivity, specificity and ROC plots were used to ascertain models' individual performance, in terms of number of cancer cases, type of cancer and age of diagnosis of breast cancer.
RESULTS: The COS and MSS models demonstrated the greatest sensitivities and area under ROC curves for the majority of family structures. They also showed the highest sensitivities (91-92%) and AUCs (76-78%) for the entire dataset overall. However, BOADICEA and T-C had the highest specificities for the majority of the family structures. BOADICEA and T-C generated the best estimates for the prevalence of mutations in the population; BOADICEA was more accurate for BRCA1 and T-C for BRCA2.
CONCLUSION: The COS and MSS models are the most effective models for use in clinical practice to select families for mutation analysis, but BOADICEA and T-C are more accurate for estimating mutation prevalence within a population.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 18097771     DOI: 10.1007/s10689-007-9176-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Fam Cancer        ISSN: 1389-9600            Impact factor:   2.375


  34 in total

1.  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

2.  Assessing BRCA carrier probabilities in extended families.

Authors:  Carlos H Barcenas; G M Monawar Hosain; Banu Arun; Jihong Zong; Xiaojun Zhou; Jianfang Chen; Jill M Cortada; Gordon B Mills; Gail E Tomlinson; Alexander R Miller; Louise C Strong; Christopher I Amos
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2006-01-20       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  Attitudes of genetic clinicians in Wales to the future development of cancer genetics services.

Authors:  Rachel Iredale; Glyn Elwyn; Adrian Edwards; Jonathon Gray
Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 2.431

Review 4.  Risk assessment: controversies and management of moderate- to high-risk individuals.

Authors:  Powel Brown
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2005 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.431

5.  Statement of the American Society of Clinical Oncology: genetic testing for cancer susceptibility, Adopted on February 20, 1996.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1996-05       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 6.  Models of genetic susceptibility to breast cancer.

Authors:  A C Antoniou; D F Easton
Journal:  Oncogene       Date:  2006-09-25       Impact factor: 9.867

Review 7.  A literature review of the psychological impact of genetic testing on breast cancer patients.

Authors:  Kathryn J Schlich-Bakker; Herman F J ten Kroode; Margreet G E M Ausems
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2005-10-19

8.  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

9.  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

10.  Breast and ovarian cancer incidence in BRCA1-mutation carriers. Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium.

Authors:  D F Easton; D Ford; D T Bishop
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1995-01       Impact factor: 11.025

View more
  3 in total

1.  Serum levels of IGF-I and BRCA penetrance: a case control study in breast cancer families.

Authors:  Patrizia Pasanisi; Eleonora Bruno; Elisabetta Venturelli; Siranoush Manoukian; Monica Barile; Bernard Peissel; Clelia De Giacomi; Bernardo Bonanni; Jacopo Berrino; Franco Berrino
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 2.375

2.  Estimate of the penetrance of BRCA mutation and the COS software for the assessment of BRCA mutation probability.

Authors:  Jacopo Berrino; Franco Berrino; Silvia Francisci; Bernard Peissel; Jacopo Azzollini; Valeria Pensotti; Paolo Radice; Patrizia Pasanisi; Siranoush Manoukian
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 2.375

3.  Personalized medicine and access to health care: potential for inequitable access?

Authors:  Kelly A McClellan; Denise Avard; Jacques Simard; Bartha M Knoppers
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2012-07-11       Impact factor: 4.246

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.