OBJECTIVES: Genetic testing for the breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 has important implications for the clinical management of people found to carry a mutation. However, genetic testing is expensive and may be associated with adverse psychosocial effects. To provide a cost-efficient and clinically appropriate genetic counselling service, genetic testing should be targeted at those individuals most likely to carry pathogenic mutations. Several algorithms that predict the likelihood of carrying a BRCA1 or a BRCA2 mutation are currently used in clinical practice to identify such individuals. DESIGN: We evaluated the performance of the carrier prediction algorithms BOADICEA, BRCAPRO, IBIS, the Manchester scoring system and Myriad tables, using 1934 families seen in cancer genetics clinics in the UK in whom an index patient had been screened for BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutations. The models were evaluated for calibration, discrimination and accuracy of the predictions. RESULTS: Of the five algorithms, only BOADICEA predicted the overall observed number of mutations detected accurately (ie, was well calibrated). BOADICEA also provided the best discrimination, being significantly better (p<0.05) than all models except BRCAPRO (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve statistics: BOADICEA = 0.77, BRCAPRO = 0.76, IBIS = 0.74, Manchester = 0.75, Myriad = 0.72). All models underpredicted the number of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in the low estimated risk category. CONCLUSIONS: Carrier prediction algorithms provide a rational basis for counselling individuals likely to carry BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. Their widespread use would improve equity of access and the cost-effectiveness of genetic testing.
OBJECTIVES: Genetic testing for the breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 has important implications for the clinical management of people found to carry a mutation. However, genetic testing is expensive and may be associated with adverse psychosocial effects. To provide a cost-efficient and clinically appropriate genetic counselling service, genetic testing should be targeted at those individuals most likely to carry pathogenic mutations. Several algorithms that predict the likelihood of carrying a BRCA1 or a BRCA2 mutation are currently used in clinical practice to identify such individuals. DESIGN: We evaluated the performance of the carrier prediction algorithms BOADICEA, BRCAPRO, IBIS, the Manchester scoring system and Myriad tables, using 1934 families seen in cancer genetics clinics in the UK in whom an index patient had been screened for BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutations. The models were evaluated for calibration, discrimination and accuracy of the predictions. RESULTS: Of the five algorithms, only BOADICEA predicted the overall observed number of mutations detected accurately (ie, was well calibrated). BOADICEA also provided the best discrimination, being significantly better (p<0.05) than all models except BRCAPRO (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve statistics: BOADICEA = 0.77, BRCAPRO = 0.76, IBIS = 0.74, Manchester = 0.75, Myriad = 0.72). All models underpredicted the number of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in the low estimated risk category. CONCLUSIONS: Carrier prediction algorithms provide a rational basis for counselling individuals likely to carry BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. Their widespread use would improve equity of access and the cost-effectiveness of genetic testing.
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: Nasim Mavaddat; Timothy R Rebbeck; Sunil R Lakhani; Douglas F Easton; Antonis C Antoniou Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2010-05-18 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: Amanda B Spurdle; Phillip J Whiley; Bryony Thompson; Bingjian Feng; Sue Healey; Melissa A Brown; Christopher Pettigrew; Christi J Van Asperen; Margreet G E M Ausems; Anna A Kattentidt-Mouravieva; Ans M W van den Ouweland; Annika Lindblom; Maritta H Pigg; Rita K Schmutzler; Christoph Engel; Alfons Meindl; Sandrine Caputo; Olga M Sinilnikova; Rosette Lidereau; Fergus J Couch; Lucia Guidugli; Thomas van Overeem Hansen; Mads Thomassen; Diana M Eccles; Kathy Tucker; Javier Benitez; Susan M Domchek; Amanda E Toland; Elizabeth J Van Rensburg; Barbara Wappenschmidt; Åke Borg; Maaike P G Vreeswijk; David E Goldgar Journal: J Med Genet Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 6.318
Authors: J J T van Harssel; C E P van Roozendaal; Y Detisch; R D Brandão; A D C Paulussen; M Zeegers; M J Blok; E B Gómez García Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 2.375