Literature DB >> 18466632

Incorporating tumor immunohistochemical markers in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carrier prediction.

Yu Chuan Tai, Sining Chen, Giovanni Parmigiani, Alison P Klein.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18466632      PMCID: PMC2397515          DOI: 10.1186/bcr1866

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast Cancer Res        ISSN: 1465-5411            Impact factor:   6.466


× No keyword cloud information.

The pathology of a patient's breast carcinoma can be highly indicative of BRCA1 mutation status. Compared to sporadic and BRCA2 deficient breast carcinomas, BRCA1 deficient carcinomas tend to be estrogen receptor (ER) negative, progesterone receptor (PR) negative, HER2 negative, cytokeratin (CK)5/6 positive, and CK14 positive [1,2]. BRCAPRO is an accurate, widely used risk prediction model that estimates the probability that an individual carries a deleterious germline mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 based upon their personal and/or family history of breast and ovarian cancer. Recently, when BRCAPRO carrier probabilities were updated using a patient's pathological sub-type, in a two-step process, risk estimation was improved [3]. Here we describe how we have substantially improved BRCAPRO by directly integrating marker information into the estimation of carrier probabilities and cancer risk. The theory underlying BRCAPRO is described elsewhere [4,5]. Briefly, the model transforms information on mutation frequency, disease penetrance, and Mendelian transmission patterns into gene carrier probabilities through application of Bayes' rule. For unaffected individuals the model predicts cancer risk from a weighted average of the penetrance for mutation carriers and non-carriers, with the estimated carrier probabilities as weights. The derived conditional probability of the marker status given carrier status used in our calculations were obtained from published data [1,2] and are presented in Table 1. These conditional probabilities are derived from a single study and from a highly selected group of high-risk breast cancer families and thus should be interpreted with some care. The following assumptions were made about the use of markers in combination. First, for ER negative tumors, carrier probabilities were updated using CK5/6 and CK14 status, if available. PR status does not influence carrier predictions if ER status is included because of a strong correlation between ER and PR. Second, Her-2 neu status was not used because it was not predictive of marker status after accounting for ER [1]. Third, marker information was assumed not to be associated with BRCA2 mutation status, because BRCA2 and sporadic tumors have similar marker profiles. Updating BRCA1 probability can have a residual impact on the BRCA2 carrier probability.
Table 1

Conditional probability of marker status given carrier status

Marker statusMarker status given carrier status
ERCK14CK5/6PRBRCA1Non-BRCA1

+...0.10.65
-++.0.4380.016
-+-.0.1240.048
--+.0.1340.024
---.0.2090.24
...+0.210.63

Estimates obtained from Lakhani and colleagues [1]. Plus signs (+) denote positive; hyphens (-) denote negative; periods (.) denote missing.

Conditional probability of marker status given carrier status Estimates obtained from Lakhani and colleagues [1]. Plus signs (+) denote positive; hyphens (-) denote negative; periods (.) denote missing. Our updated software package is freely available from [6,7]. A clinical example of a 54 year old female counselee with breast cancer at 45 whose mother had breast cancer at age 63 and no other family history, under various marker scenarios, is presented in Table 2. Without marker data, the counselee's carrier probabilities for BRCA1 and BRCA2 are 2.2% and 2.3%, respectively. These probabilities are 5.5% if her tumor is ER negative or 0.35% if ER positive. Changes in carrier probability generally correspond to markedly different clinical recommendations regarding genetic testing and cancer prevention. Including this information greatly impacts BRCAPRO carrier probabilities and improves distinction between BRCA1 and non-BRCA1 breast tumors.
Table 2

Example of clinical application: BRCA1 and BRCA2 carrier probabilities (%) under selected marker profile scenarios

Cancer history

Counselee: 54 year old with breast cancer at 45Mother: breast cancer at 63Estimated carrier probabilities (%)



ERCK14CK5/6PRERCK14CK5/6PRBRCA1BRCA2
........2.22.3
-.......5.52.3
+.......0.352.4
...-....4.62.3
...+....0.752.4
-++.....381.5
-...-...112.1
-...+...2.12.3
-++.-++.361.5
-+-.-+-+2.12.3

No other family history is available. Plus signs (+) denote positive; hyphens (-) denote negative; periods (.) denote missing.

Example of clinical application: BRCA1 and BRCA2 carrier probabilities (%) under selected marker profile scenarios No other family history is available. Plus signs (+) denote positive; hyphens (-) denote negative; periods (.) denote missing.

Abbreviations

CK = cytokeratin; ER = estrogen receptor; PR = progesterone receptor.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
  5 in total

1.  BayesMendel: an R environment for Mendelian risk prediction.

Authors:  Sining Chen; Wenyi Wang; Karl W Broman; Hormuzd A Katki; Giovanni Parmigiani
Journal:  Stat Appl Genet Mol Biol       Date:  2004-09-17

2.  The pathology of familial breast cancer: predictive value of immunohistochemical markers estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, HER-2, and p53 in patients with mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2.

Authors:  Sunil R Lakhani; Marc J Van De Vijver; Jocelyne Jacquemier; Thomas J Anderson; Peter P Osin; Lesley McGuffog; Douglas F Easton
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2002-05-01       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  Determining carrier probabilities for breast cancer-susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2.

Authors:  G Parmigiani; D Berry; O Aguilar
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1998-01       Impact factor: 11.025

4.  Optimal selection of individuals for BRCA mutation testing: a comparison of available methods.

Authors:  Paul A James; Rebecca Doherty; Marion Harris; Bickol N Mukesh; Alvin Milner; Mary-Anne Young; Clare Scott
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2006-02-01       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Prediction of BRCA1 status in patients with breast cancer using estrogen receptor and basal phenotype.

Authors:  Sunil R Lakhani; Jorge S Reis-Filho; Laura Fulford; Frederique Penault-Llorca; Marc van der Vijver; Suzanne Parry; Timothy Bishop; Javier Benitez; Carmen Rivas; Yves-Jean Bignon; Jenny Chang-Claude; Ute Hamann; Cees J Cornelisse; Peter Devilee; Matthias W Beckmann; Carolin Nestle-Krämling; Peter A Daly; Neva Haites; Jenny Varley; Fiona Lalloo; Gareth Evans; Christine Maugard; Hanne Meijers-Heijboer; Jan G M Klijn; Edith Olah; Barry A Gusterson; Silvana Pilotti; Paolo Radice; Siegfried Scherneck; Hagay Sobol; Jocelyne Jacquemier; Teresa Wagner; Julian Peto; Michael R Stratton; Lesley McGuffog; Douglas F Easton
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2005-07-15       Impact factor: 12.531

  5 in total
  13 in total

1.  Pathology of breast and ovarian cancers among BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: results from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA).

Authors:  Nasim Mavaddat; Daniel Barrowdale; Irene L Andrulis; Susan M Domchek; Diana Eccles; Heli Nevanlinna; Susan J Ramus; Amanda Spurdle; Mark Robson; Mark Sherman; Anna Marie Mulligan; Fergus J Couch; Christoph Engel; Lesley McGuffog; Sue Healey; Olga M Sinilnikova; Melissa C Southey; Mary Beth Terry; David Goldgar; Frances O'Malley; Esther M John; Ramunas Janavicius; Laima Tihomirova; Thomas V O Hansen; Finn C Nielsen; Ana Osorio; Alexandra Stavropoulou; Javier Benítez; Siranoush Manoukian; Bernard Peissel; Monica Barile; Sara Volorio; Barbara Pasini; Riccardo Dolcetti; Anna Laura Putignano; Laura Ottini; Paolo Radice; Ute Hamann; Muhammad U Rashid; Frans B Hogervorst; Mieke Kriege; Rob B van der Luijt; Susan Peock; Debra Frost; D Gareth Evans; Carole Brewer; Lisa Walker; Mark T Rogers; Lucy E Side; Catherine Houghton; JoEllen Weaver; Andrew K Godwin; Rita K Schmutzler; Barbara Wappenschmidt; Alfons Meindl; Karin Kast; Norbert Arnold; Dieter Niederacher; Christian Sutter; Helmut Deissler; Doroteha Gadzicki; Sabine Preisler-Adams; Raymonda Varon-Mateeva; Ines Schönbuchner; Heidrun Gevensleben; Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet; Muriel Belotti; Laure Barjhoux; Claudine Isaacs; Beth N Peshkin; Trinidad Caldes; Miguel de la Hoya; Carmen Cañadas; Tuomas Heikkinen; Päivi Heikkilä; Kristiina Aittomäki; Ignacio Blanco; Conxi Lazaro; Joan Brunet; Bjarni A Agnarsson; Adalgeir Arason; Rosa B Barkardottir; Martine Dumont; Jacques Simard; Marco Montagna; Simona Agata; Emma D'Andrea; Max Yan; Stephen Fox; Timothy R Rebbeck; Wendy Rubinstein; Nadine Tung; Judy E Garber; Xianshu Wang; Zachary Fredericksen; Vernon S Pankratz; Noralane M Lindor; Csilla Szabo; Kenneth Offit; Rita Sakr; Mia M Gaudet; Christian F Singer; Muy-Kheng Tea; Christine Rappaport; Phuong L Mai; Mark H Greene; Anna Sokolenko; Evgeny Imyanitov; Amanda Ewart Toland; Leigha Senter; Kevin Sweet; Mads Thomassen; Anne-Marie Gerdes; Torben Kruse; Maria Caligo; Paolo Aretini; Johanna Rantala; Anna von Wachenfeld; Karin Henriksson; Linda Steele; Susan L Neuhausen; Robert Nussbaum; Mary Beattie; Kunle Odunsi; Lara Sucheston; Simon A Gayther; Kate Nathanson; Jenny Gross; Christine Walsh; Beth Karlan; Georgia Chenevix-Trench; Douglas F Easton; Antonis C Antoniou
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2011-12-05       Impact factor: 4.254

2.  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

3.  Reclassification of predictions for uncovering subgroup specific improvement.

Authors:  Swati Biswas; Banu Arun; Giovanni Parmigiani
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2013-12-18       Impact factor: 2.373

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

5.  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

6.  Providing access to risk prediction tools via the HL7 XML-formatted risk web service.

Authors:  Jonathan Chipman; Brian Drohan; Amanda Blackford; Giovanni Parmigiani; Kevin Hughes; Phil Bosinoff
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2013-06-23       Impact factor: 4.872

Review 7.  Genetic risk assessments in individuals at high risk for inherited breast cancer in the breast oncology care setting.

Authors:  Tuya Pal; Susan T Vadaparampil
Journal:  Cancer Control       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 3.302

8.  Recent BRCAPRO upgrades significantly improve calibration.

Authors:  Emanuele Mazzola; Jonathan Chipman; Su-Chun Cheng; Giovanni Parmigiani
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2014-06-02       Impact factor: 4.254

9.  Simplifying clinical use of the genetic risk prediction model BRCAPRO.

Authors:  Swati Biswas; Philamer Atienza; Jonathan Chipman; Kevin Hughes; Angelica M Gutierrez Barrera; Christopher I Amos; Banu Arun; Giovanni Parmigiani
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2013-05-21       Impact factor: 4.872

10.  KOHBRA BRCA risk calculator (KOHCal): a model for predicting BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in Korean breast cancer patients.

Authors:  Eunyoung Kang; Sue K Park; Jong Won Lee; Zisun Kim; Woo-Chul Noh; Yongsik Jung; Jung-Hyun Yang; Sung Hoo Jung; Sung-Won Kim
Journal:  J Hum Genet       Date:  2016-01-14       Impact factor: 3.172

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.