Assessing BRCA carrier probabilities in extended families

被引:70
作者
Barcenas, CH
Hosain, GMM
Arun, B
Zong, JH
Zhou, XJ
Chen, JF
Cortada, JM
Mills, GB
Tomlinson, GE
Miller, AR
Strong, LC
Amos, CI
机构
[1] Univ Texas, MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Dept Epidemiol, Houston, TX 77030 USA
[2] Univ Texas, MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Dept Breast Med Oncol, Houston, TX 77030 USA
[3] Univ Texas, MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Dept Clin Canc Genet, Houston, TX 77030 USA
[4] Univ Texas, MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Dept Mol Therapeut, Houston, TX 77030 USA
[5] Univ Texas, SW Med Ctr, Dept Pediat, Dallas, TX 75230 USA
[6] Canc Therapy & Res Ctr S Texas, San Antonio, TX 78229 USA
[7] Aventis Pharmaceut Inc, Global Pharmacovigilance & Epidemiol, Bridgewater, NJ USA
关键词
D O I
10.1200/JCO.2005.02.2368
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Purpose Carrier prediction models estimate the probability that a person has a BRCA mutation. We evaluated the accuracy of the BOADICEA model and compared its performance with that of other models (BRCAPRO, Myriad I and II, Couch, and Manchester Scoring System). We also studied the effect of extended family information on risk estimation using BOADICEA. Methods We compared the area under receiver operating characteristic curves generated from 472 families with one member tested for BRCA mutations. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values at an estimated probability of 10% and explored the biases of carrier prediction. Results BOADICEA performed better than the other models in Ashkenazi Jewish (AJ) families, BRCAPRO performed slightly better in non-AJ families, and Myriad II performed comparably well in both groups. Including extended family information in BOADICEA yielded slightly better performance than did limiting the information to second-degree relatives. Using a 10% cutoff point, BOADICEA and Myriad II were most sensitive in predicting BRCA1/2 mutations in AJ families, and Myriad II was most sensitive in non-AJ families. The Manchester Scoring System was the most sensitive and least specific in a subgroup of non-AJ families. BOADICEA and BRCAPRO tended to underestimate the observed risk at low estimated probabilities and overestimate it at higher probabilities. Conclusion The BOADICEA, BRCAPRO, and Myriad II models performed similarly. Including second-degree relatives slightly improved carrier prediction by BOADICEA. The Myriad II model was the easiest to implement.
引用
收藏
页码:354 / 360
页数:7
相关论文
共 27 条
  • [1] A comprehensive model for familial breast cancer incorporating BRCA1, BRCA2 and other genes
    Antoniou, AC
    Pharoah, PDP
    McMullan, G
    Day, NE
    Stratton, MR
    Peto, J
    Ponder, BJ
    Easton, DF
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2002, 86 (01) : 76 - 83
  • [2] The BOADICEA model of genetic susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancer
    Antoniou, AC
    Pharoah, PPD
    Smith, P
    Easton, DF
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2004, 91 (08) : 1580 - 1590
  • [3] BRCAPRO validation, sensitivity of genetic testing of BRCA1/BRCA2, and prevalence of other breast cancer susceptibility genes
    Berry, DA
    Iversen, ES
    Gudbjartsson, DF
    Hiller, EH
    Garber, JE
    Peshkin, BN
    Lerman, C
    Watson, P
    Lynch, HT
    Hilsenbeck, SG
    Rubinstein, WS
    Hughes, KS
    Parmigiani, G
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2002, 20 (11) : 2701 - 2712
  • [4] Brose MS, 2002, J NATL CANCER I, V94, P1365, DOI 10.1093/jnci/94.18.1365
  • [5] American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement update: Genetic testing for cancer susceptibility
    Bruinooge, SS
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2003, 21 (12) : 2397 - 2406
  • [6] BRCA1 mutations in women attending clinics that evaluate the risk of breast cancer
    Couch, FJ
    DeShano, ML
    Blackwood, MA
    Calzone, K
    Stopfer, J
    Campeau, L
    Ganguly, A
    Rebbeck, T
    Weber, BL
    Jablon, L
    Cobleigh, MA
    Hoskins, K
    Garber, JE
    [J]. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1997, 336 (20) : 1409 - 1415
  • [7] Pretest prediction of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation by risk counselors and the computer model BRCAPRO
    Euhus, DM
    Smith, KC
    Robinson, L
    Stucky, A
    Olopade, OI
    Cummings, S
    Garber, JE
    Chittenden, A
    Mills, GB
    Rieger, P
    Esserman, L
    Crawford, B
    Hughes, KS
    Roche, CA
    Ganz, PA
    Seldon, J
    Fabian, CJ
    Klemp, J
    Tomlinson, G
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2002, 94 (11) : 844 - 851
  • [8] Update on the Manchester scoring system for BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing -: art. no. e39
    Evans, DGR
    Lalloo, F
    Wallace, A
    Rahman, N
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MEDICAL GENETICS, 2005, 42 (07)
  • [9] A new scoring system for the chances of identifying a BRCA1/2 mutation outperforms existing models including BRCAPRO
    Evans, DGR
    Eccles, DM
    Rahman, N
    Young, K
    Bulman, M
    Amir, E
    Shenton, A
    Howell, A
    Lalloo, F
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MEDICAL GENETICS, 2004, 41 (06) : 474 - 480
  • [10] Clinical characteristics of individuals with germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2:: Analysis of 10,000 individuals
    Frank, TS
    Deffenbaugh, AM
    Reid, JE
    Hulick, M
    Ward, BE
    Lingenfelter, B
    Gumpper, KL
    Scholl, T
    Tavtigian, SV
    Pruss, DR
    Critchfield, GC
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2002, 20 (06) : 1480 - 1490