Literature DB >> 23690142

Simplifying clinical use of the genetic risk prediction model BRCAPRO.

Swati Biswas1, Philamer Atienza, Jonathan Chipman, Kevin Hughes, Angelica M Gutierrez Barrera, Christopher I Amos, Banu Arun, Giovanni Parmigiani.   

Abstract

Health care providers need simple tools to identify patients at genetic risk of breast and ovarian cancers. Genetic risk prediction models such as BRCAPRO could fill this gap if incorporated into Electronic Medical Records or other Health Information Technology solutions. However, BRCAPRO requires potentially extensive information on the counselee and her family history. Thus, it may be useful to provide simplified version(s) of BRCAPRO for use in settings that do not require exhaustive genetic counseling. We explore four simplified versions of BRCAPRO, each using less complete information than the original model. BRCAPROLYTE uses information on affected relatives only up to second degree. It is in clinical use but has not been evaluated. BRCAPROLYTE-Plus extends BRCAPROLYTE by imputing the ages of unaffected relatives. BRCAPROLYTE-Simple reduces the data collection burden associated with BRCAPROLYTE and BRCAPROLYTE-Plus by not collecting the family structure. BRCAPRO-1Degree only uses first-degree affected relatives. We use data on 2,713 individuals from seven sites of the Cancer Genetics Network and MD Anderson Cancer Center to compare these simplified tools with the Family History Assessment Tool (FHAT) and BRCAPRO, with the latter serving as the benchmark. BRCAPROLYTE retains high discrimination; however, because it ignores information on unaffected relatives, it overestimates carrier probabilities. BRCAPROLYTE-Plus and BRCAPROLYTE-Simple provide better calibration than BRCAPROLYTE, so they have higher specificity for similar values of sensitivity. BRCAPROLYTE-Plus performs slightly better than BRCAPROLYTE-Simple. The Areas Under the ROC curve are 0.783 (BRCAPRO), 0.763 (BRCAPROLYTE), 0.772 (BRCAPROLYTE-Plus), 0.773 (BRCAPROLYTE-Simple), 0.728 (BRCAPRO-1Degree), and 0.745 (FHAT). The simpler versions, especially BRCAPROLYTE-Plus and BRCAPROLYTE-Simple, lead to only modest loss in overall discrimination compared to BRCAPRO in this dataset. Thus, we conclude that simplified implementations of BRCAPRO can be used for genetic risk prediction in settings where collection of complete pedigree information is impractical.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23690142      PMCID: PMC3699331          DOI: 10.1007/s10549-013-2564-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat        ISSN: 0167-6806            Impact factor:   4.872


  17 in total

1.  Assessing the added value of breast tumor markers in genetic risk prediction model BRCAPRO.

Authors:  Swati Biswas; Neelam Tankhiwale; Amanda Blackford; Angelica M Gutierrez Barrera; Kaylene Ready; Karen Lu; Christopher I Amos; Giovanni Parmigiani; Banu Arun
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2012-01-21       Impact factor: 4.872

2.  Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: from area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond.

Authors:  Michael J Pencina; Ralph B D'Agostino; Ralph B D'Agostino; Ramachandran S Vasan
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2008-01-30       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 3.  Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer and other hereditary syndromes: using technology to identify carriers.

Authors:  Brian Drohan; Constance A Roche; James C Cusack; Kevin S Hughes
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2012-03-17       Impact factor: 5.344

4.  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

5.  A preliminary validation of a family history assessment form to select women at risk for breast or ovarian cancer for referral to a genetics center.

Authors:  C A Gilpin; N Carson; A G Hunter
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 4.438

6.  Prediction of germline mutations and cancer risk in the Lynch syndrome.

Authors:  Sining Chen; Wenyi Wang; Shing Lee; Khedoudja Nafa; Johanna Lee; Kathy Romans; Patrice Watson; Stephen B Gruber; David Euhus; Kenneth W Kinzler; Jeremy Jass; Steven Gallinger; Noralane M Lindor; Graham Casey; Nathan Ellis; Francis M Giardiello; Kenneth Offit; Giovanni Parmigiani
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2006-09-27       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 7.  Electronic health records and the management of women at high risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Brian Drohan; Elissa M Ozanne; Kevin S Hughes
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2009 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.431

8.  Proceedings of the international consensus conference on breast cancer risk, genetics, & risk management, April, 2007.

Authors:  Gordon F Schwartz; Kevin S Hughes; Henry T Lynch; Carol J Fabian; Ian S Fentiman; Mark E Robson; Susan M Domchek; Lynn C Hartmann; Roland Holland; David J Winchester
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2008-11-15       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  Multiple diseases in carrier probability estimation: accounting for surviving all cancers other than breast and ovary in BRCAPRO.

Authors:  Hormuzd A Katki; Amanda Blackford; Sining Chen; Giovanni Parmigiani
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2008-09-30       Impact factor: 2.373

10.  Incorporating medical interventions into carrier probability estimation for genetic counseling.

Authors:  Hormuzd A Katki
Journal:  BMC Med Genet       Date:  2007-03-22       Impact factor: 2.103

View more
  11 in total

1.  Performance of Breast Cancer Risk-Assessment Models in a Large Mammography Cohort.

Authors:  Anne Marie McCarthy; Zoe Guan; Michaela Welch; Molly E Griffin; Dorothy A Sippo; Zhengyi Deng; Suzanne B Coopey; Ahmet Acar; Alan Semine; Giovanni Parmigiani; Danielle Braun; Kevin S Hughes
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2020-05-01       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Comparison between CaGene 5.1 and 6.0 for BRCA1/2 mutation prediction: a retrospective study of 150 BRCA1/2 genetic tests in 517 families with breast/ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Ivana Antonucci; Martina Provenzano; Luca Sorino; Michela Balsamo; Gitana Maria Aceto; Pasquale Battista; David Euhus; Ettore Cianchetti; Patrizia Ballerini; Clara Natoli; Giandomenico Palka; Liborio Stuppia
Journal:  J Hum Genet       Date:  2016-12-08       Impact factor: 3.172

3.  Efficient computation of the joint probability of multiple inherited risk alleles from pedigree data.

Authors:  Thomas Madsen; Danielle Braun; Gang Peng; Giovanni Parmigiani; Lorenzo Trippa
Journal:  Genet Epidemiol       Date:  2018-06-25       Impact factor: 2.135

4.  Practical implementation of frailty models in Mendelian risk prediction.

Authors:  Theodore Huang; Malka Gorfine; Li Hsu; Giovanni Parmigiani; Danielle Braun
Journal:  Genet Epidemiol       Date:  2020-06-07       Impact factor: 2.135

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.  A model for individualized risk prediction of contralateral breast cancer.

Authors:  Marzana Chowdhury; David Euhus; Tracy Onega; Swati Biswas; Pankaj K Choudhary
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2016-11-04       Impact factor: 4.624

Review 7.  Recent Enhancements to the Genetic Risk Prediction Model BRCAPRO.

Authors:  Emanuele Mazzola; Amanda Blackford; Giovanni Parmigiani; Swati Biswas
Journal:  Cancer Inform       Date:  2015-05-10

8.  Personalisation of breast cancer follow-up: a time-dependent prognostic nomogram for the estimation of annual risk of locoregional recurrence in early breast cancer patients.

Authors:  Annemieke Witteveen; Ingrid M H Vliegen; Gabe S Sonke; Joost M Klaase; Maarten J IJzerman; Sabine Siesling
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2015-07-11       Impact factor: 4.872

Review 9.  Review of non-clinical risk models to aid prevention of breast cancer.

Authors:  Kawthar Al-Ajmi; Artitaya Lophatananon; Martin Yuille; William Ollier; Kenneth R Muir
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2018-09-03       Impact factor: 2.506

Review 10.  Why the Gold Standard Approach by Mammography Demands Extension by Multiomics? Application of Liquid Biopsy miRNA Profiles to Breast Cancer Disease Management.

Authors:  Pavol Zubor; Peter Kubatka; Karol Kajo; Zuzana Dankova; Hubert Polacek; Tibor Bielik; Erik Kudela; Marek Samec; Alena Liskova; Dominika Vlcakova; Tatiana Kulkovska; Igor Stastny; Veronika Holubekova; Jan Bujnak; Zuzana Laucekova; Dietrich Büsselberg; Mariusz Adamek; Walther Kuhn; Jan Danko; Olga Golubnitschaja
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2019-06-13       Impact factor: 5.923

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.