BACKGROUND: Several models have recently been developed to predict mismatch repair (MMR) gene mutations. Their comparative performance with clinical criteria or universal molecular screening in a population based colorectal cancer (CRC) cohort has not been assessed. METHODS: All 1222 CRC from the EPICOLON cohort underwent tumour MMR testing with immunohistochemistry and microsatellite instability, and those with MMR deficiency (n = 91) underwent MLH1/MSH2 germline testing. Sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) of the PREMM(1,2) and the Barnetson models for identification of MLH1/MSH2 mutation carriers were evaluated and compared with the revised Bethesda guidelines (RBG), Amsterdam II criteria, and tumour analysis for MMR deficiency. Overall discriminative ability was quantified by the area under the ROC curve (AUC), and calibration was assessed by comparing the average predictions versus the observed prevalence. RESULTS: Both models had similar AUC (0.93 and 0.92, respectively). Sensitivity of the RBG and a PREMM(1,2) score > or =5% was 100% (95% CI 71% to 100%); a Barnetson score >0.5% missed one mutation carrier (sensitivity 87%, 95% CI 51% to 99%). PPVs of all three strategies were 2-3%. Presence of MMR deficiency increased specificity and PPV of predictive scores (97% and 21% for PREMM(1,2) score > or =5%, and 98% and 21% for Barnetson > or =0.5%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The PREMM(1,2) and the Barnetson models offer a quantitative systematic approach to select CRC patients for identification of MLH1/MSH2 mutation carriers with a similar performance to the RBG.
BACKGROUND: Several models have recently been developed to predict mismatch repair (MMR) gene mutations. Their comparative performance with clinical criteria or universal molecular screening in a population based colorectal cancer (CRC) cohort has not been assessed. METHODS: All 1222 CRC from the EPICOLON cohort underwent tumour MMR testing with immunohistochemistry and microsatellite instability, and those with MMR deficiency (n = 91) underwent MLH1/MSH2 germline testing. Sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) of the PREMM(1,2) and the Barnetson models for identification of MLH1/MSH2 mutation carriers were evaluated and compared with the revised Bethesda guidelines (RBG), Amsterdam II criteria, and tumour analysis for MMR deficiency. Overall discriminative ability was quantified by the area under the ROC curve (AUC), and calibration was assessed by comparing the average predictions versus the observed prevalence. RESULTS: Both models had similar AUC (0.93 and 0.92, respectively). Sensitivity of the RBG and a PREMM(1,2) score > or =5% was 100% (95% CI 71% to 100%); a Barnetson score >0.5% missed one mutation carrier (sensitivity 87%, 95% CI 51% to 99%). PPVs of all three strategies were 2-3%. Presence of MMR deficiency increased specificity and PPV of predictive scores (97% and 21% for PREMM(1,2) score > or =5%, and 98% and 21% for Barnetson > or =0.5%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The PREMM(1,2) and the Barnetson models offer a quantitative systematic approach to select CRCpatients for identification of MLH1/MSH2 mutation carriers with a similar performance to the RBG.
Authors: Fay Kastrinos; Ewout W Steyerberg; Rowena Mercado; Judith Balmaña; Spring Holter; Steven Gallinger; Kimberly D Siegmund; James M Church; Mark A Jenkins; Noralane M Lindor; Stephen N Thibodeau; Lynn Anne Burbidge; Richard J Wenstrup; Sapna Syngal Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2010-08-19 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Miguel Serrano; Pedro Lage; Sara Belga; Bruno Filipe; Inês Francisco; Paula Rodrigues; Ricardo Fonseca; Paula Chaves; Isabel Claro; Cristina Albuquerque; António Dias Pereira Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Fay Kastrinos; Ewout W Steyerberg; Judith Balmaña; Rowena Mercado; Steven Gallinger; Robert Haile; Graham Casey; John L Hopper; Loic LeMarchand; Noralane M Lindor; Polly A Newcomb; Stephen N Thibodeau; Sapna Syngal Journal: Gut Date: 2012-02-16 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Uri Ladabaum; Grace Wang; Jonathan Terdiman; Amie Blanco; Miriam Kuppermann; C Richard Boland; James Ford; Elena Elkin; Kathryn A Phillips Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-07-19 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Wilfredo E De Jesus-Monge; Carmen Gonzalez-Keelan; Ronghua Zhao; Stanley R Hamilton; Miguel Rodriguez-Bigas; Marcia Cruz-Correa Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Leticia Moreira; Francesc Balaguer; Noralane Lindor; Albert de la Chapelle; Heather Hampel; Lauri A Aaltonen; John L Hopper; Loic Le Marchand; Steven Gallinger; Polly A Newcomb; Robert Haile; Stephen N Thibodeau; Shanaka Gunawardena; Mark A Jenkins; Daniel D Buchanan; John D Potter; John A Baron; Dennis J Ahnen; Victor Moreno; Montserrat Andreu; Maurizio Ponz de Leon; Anil K Rustgi; Antoni Castells Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-10-17 Impact factor: 56.272