PURPOSE: Lynch syndrome accounts for 2-5% of endometrial cancer cases. Lynch syndrome prediction models have not been evaluated among endometrial cancer cases. METHODS: Area under the receiver operating curve (AUC), sensitivity and specificity of PREMM(1,2,6), MMRpredict, and MMRpro scores were assessed among 563 population-based and 129 clinic-based endometrial cancer cases. RESULTS: A total of 14 (3%) population-based and 80 (62%) clinic-based subjects had pathogenic mutations. PREMM(1,2,6), MMRpredict, and MMRpro were able to distinguish mutation carriers from noncarriers (AUC of 0.77, 0.76, and 0.77, respectively), among population-based cases. All three models had lower discrimination for the clinic-based cohort, with AUCs of 0.67, 0.64, and 0.54, respectively. Using a 5% cutoff, sensitivity and specificity were as follows: PREMM(1,2,6), 93% and 5% among population-based cases and 99% and 2% among clinic-based cases; MMRpredict, 71% and 64% for the population-based cohort and 91% and 0% for the clinic-based cohort; and MMRpro, 57% and 85% among population-based cases and 95% and 10% among clinic-based cases. CONCLUSION: Currently available prediction models have limited clinical utility in determining which patients with endometrial cancer should undergo genetic testing for Lynch syndrome. Immunohistochemical analysis and microsatellite instability testing may be the best currently available tools to screen for Lynch syndrome in endometrial cancer patients.
PURPOSE: Lynch syndrome accounts for 2-5% of endometrial cancer cases. Lynch syndrome prediction models have not been evaluated among endometrial cancer cases. METHODS: Area under the receiver operating curve (AUC), sensitivity and specificity of PREMM(1,2,6), MMRpredict, and MMRpro scores were assessed among 563 population-based and 129 clinic-based endometrial cancer cases. RESULTS: A total of 14 (3%) population-based and 80 (62%) clinic-based subjects had pathogenic mutations. PREMM(1,2,6), MMRpredict, and MMRpro were able to distinguish mutation carriers from noncarriers (AUC of 0.77, 0.76, and 0.77, respectively), among population-based cases. All three models had lower discrimination for the clinic-based cohort, with AUCs of 0.67, 0.64, and 0.54, respectively. Using a 5% cutoff, sensitivity and specificity were as follows: PREMM(1,2,6), 93% and 5% among population-based cases and 99% and 2% among clinic-based cases; MMRpredict, 71% and 64% for the population-based cohort and 91% and 0% for the clinic-based cohort; and MMRpro, 57% and 85% among population-based cases and 95% and 10% among clinic-based cases. CONCLUSION: Currently available prediction models have limited clinical utility in determining which patients with endometrial cancer should undergo genetic testing for Lynch syndrome. Immunohistochemical analysis and microsatellite instability testing may be the best currently available tools to screen for Lynch syndrome in endometrial cancer patients.
Authors: Jose G Monzon; Carol Cremin; Linlea Armstrong; Jennifer Nuk; Sean Young; Doug E Horsman; Kristy Garbutt; Chris D Bajdik; Sharlene Gill Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2010-02-15 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Noralane M Lindor; Lawrence J Burgart; Olga Leontovich; Richard M Goldberg; Julie M Cunningham; Daniel J Sargent; Catherine Walsh-Vockley; Gloria M Petersen; Michael D Walsh; Barbara A Leggett; Joanne P Young; Melissa A Barker; Jeremy R Jass; John Hopper; Steve Gallinger; Bharati Bapat; Mark Redston; Stephen N Thibodeau Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-02-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Heather Hampel; Wendy Frankel; Jenny Panescu; Janet Lockman; Kaisa Sotamaa; Daniel Fix; Ilene Comeras; Jennifer La Jeunesse; Hidewaki Nakagawa; Judith A Westman; Thomas W Prior; Mark Clendenning; Pamela Penzone; Janet Lombardi; Patti Dunn; David E Cohn; Larry Copeland; Lynne Eaton; Jeffrey Fowler; George Lewandowski; Luis Vaccarello; Jeffrey Bell; Gary Reid; Albert de la Chapelle Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2006-08-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Janice S Kwon; Jenna L Scott; C Blake Gilks; Molly S Daniels; Charlotte C Sun; Karen H Lu Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-05-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Karen H Lu; John O Schorge; Kerry J Rodabaugh; Molly S Daniels; Charlotte C Sun; Pamela T Soliman; Kristin G White; Rajyalakshmi Luthra; David M Gershenson; Russell R Broaddus Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-10-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Michael D Walsh; Margaret C Cummings; Daniel D Buchanan; Wendy M Dambacher; Sven Arnold; Diane McKeone; Rebecca Byrnes; Melissa A Barker; Barbara A Leggett; Michael Gattas; Jeremy R Jass; Amanda B Spurdle; Joanne Young; Andreas Obermair Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2008-02-29 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Shannon N Westin; Robin A Lacour; Diana L Urbauer; Rajyalakshmi Luthra; Diane C Bodurka; Karen H Lu; Russell R Broaddus Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-11-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Fay Kastrinos; Hajime Uno; Chinedu Ukaegbu; Carmelita Alvero; Ashley McFarland; Matthew B Yurgelun; Matthew H Kulke; Deborah Schrag; Jeffrey A Meyerhardt; Charles S Fuchs; Robert J Mayer; Kimmie Ng; Ewout W Steyerberg; Sapna Syngal Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-05-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Amanda S Bruegl; Bojana Djordjevic; Diana L Urbauer; Shannon N Westin; Pamela T Soliman; Karen H Lu; Rajyalakshmi Luthra; Russell R Broaddus Journal: Curr Pharm Des Date: 2014 Impact factor: 3.116
Authors: Amanda S Bruegl; Bojana Djordjevic; Brittany Batte; Molly Daniels; Bryan Fellman; Diana Urbauer; Rajyalakshmi Luthra; Charlotte Sun; Karen H Lu; Russell R Broaddus Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2014-04-25
Authors: Huma Q Rana; Sarah R Cochrane; Elaine Hiller; Ruth N Akindele; Callie M Nibecker; Ludmila A Svoboda; Angel M Cronin; Judy E Garber; Christopher S Lathan Journal: J Community Genet Date: 2017-11-18
Authors: Julie-Anne Tanner; Jennifer Hensel; Paige E Davies; Lisa C Brown; Bryan M Dechairo; Benoit H Mulsant Journal: Can J Psychiatry Date: 2019-12-13 Impact factor: 4.356