PURPOSE: There are established differences in breast cancer epidemiology between Asian and white individuals, but little is known about hereditary breast cancer in Asian populations. Although increasing numbers of Asian individuals are clinically tested for BRCA1/2 mutations, it is not known whether computer models that predict mutations work accurately in Asian individuals. We compared the performance in Asian and white individuals of two widely used BRCA1/2 mutation prediction models, BRCAPRO and Myriad II. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We evaluated BRCAPRO and Myriad II in 200 Asian individuals and a matched control group of 200 white individuals who were tested for BRCA1/2 mutations at four cancer genetics clinics, by comparing numbers of observed versus predicted mutation carriers and by evaluating area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for each model. RESULTS: BRCAPRO and Myriad II accurately predicted the number of white BRCA1/2 mutation carriers (25 observed v 24 predicted by BRCAPRO; 25 predicted by Myriad II, P > or = .69), but underpredicted Asian carriers by two-fold (49 observed v 25 predicted by BRCAPRO; 26 predicted by Myriad II; P < or = 3 x 10(-7)). For BRCAPRO, this racial difference reflects substantial underprediction of Asian BRCA2 mutation carriers (26 observed v 4 predicted; P = 1 x 10(-30)); for Myriad II, separate mutation predictions were not available. For both models, AUCs were nonsignificantly lower in Asian than white individuals, suggesting less accurate discrimination between Asian carriers and noncarriers. CONCLUSION: Both BRCAPRO and Myriad II underestimated the proportion of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, and discriminated carriers from noncarriers less well, in Asian compared with white individuals.
PURPOSE: There are established differences in breast cancer epidemiology between Asian and white individuals, but little is known about hereditary breast cancer in Asian populations. Although increasing numbers of Asian individuals are clinically tested for BRCA1/2 mutations, it is not known whether computer models that predict mutations work accurately in Asian individuals. We compared the performance in Asian and white individuals of two widely used BRCA1/2 mutation prediction models, BRCAPRO and Myriad II. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We evaluated BRCAPRO and Myriad II in 200 Asian individuals and a matched control group of 200 white individuals who were tested for BRCA1/2 mutations at four cancer genetics clinics, by comparing numbers of observed versus predicted mutation carriers and by evaluating area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for each model. RESULTS: BRCAPRO and Myriad II accurately predicted the number of white BRCA1/2 mutation carriers (25 observed v 24 predicted by BRCAPRO; 25 predicted by Myriad II, P > or = .69), but underpredicted Asian carriers by two-fold (49 observed v 25 predicted by BRCAPRO; 26 predicted by Myriad II; P < or = 3 x 10(-7)). For BRCAPRO, this racial difference reflects substantial underprediction of Asian BRCA2 mutation carriers (26 observed v 4 predicted; P = 1 x 10(-30)); for Myriad II, separate mutation predictions were not available. For both models, AUCs were nonsignificantly lower in Asian than white individuals, suggesting less accurate discrimination between Asian carriers and noncarriers. CONCLUSION: Both BRCAPRO and Myriad II underestimated the proportion of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, and discriminated carriers from noncarriers less well, in Asian compared with white individuals.
Authors: C Eng; L C Brody; T M Wagner; P Devilee; J Vijg; C Szabo; S V Tavtigian; K L Nathanson; E Ostrander; T S Frank Journal: J Med Genet Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 6.318
Authors: Miguel de la Hoya; Ana Osorio; Javier Godino; Sara Sulleiro; Alicia Tosar; Pedro Perez-Segura; Cristina Fernandez; Raquel Rodríguez; Eduardo Díaz-Rubio; Javier Benítez; Peter Devilee; Trinidad Caldés Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2002-02-01 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: David M Euhus; Kristin C Smith; Linda Robinson; Amy Stucky; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Shelly Cummings; Judy E Garber; Anu Chittenden; Gordon B Mills; Paula Rieger; Laura Esserman; Beth Crawford; Kevin S Hughes; Connie A Roche; Patricia A Ganz; Joyce Seldon; Carol J Fabian; Jennifer Klemp; Gail Tomlinson Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2002-06-05 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Malcolm C Pike; Laurence N Kolonel; Brian E Henderson; Lynne R Wilkens; Jean H Hankin; Heather Spencer Feigelson; Peggy C Wan; Daniel O Stram; Abraham M Y Nomura Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Peter A Fasching; Mayada R Bani; Carolin Nestle-Krämling; Tim O Goecke; Dieter Niederacher; Matthias W Beckmann; Michael P Lux Journal: Eur J Cancer Prev Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Monique A de Bruin; Ava Kwong; Benjamin A Goldstein; Jafi A Lipson; Debra M Ikeda; Lisa McPherson; Bhavna Sharma; Ani Kardashian; Elizabeth Schackmann; Kerry E Kingham; Meredith A Mills; Dee W West; James M Ford; Allison W Kurian Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 2.375