Pretest prediction of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation by risk counselors and the computer model BRCAPRO

被引:119
作者
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
机构
[1] Univ Texas, SW Med Ctr, Div Surg Oncol, Dallas, TX 75390 USA
[2] Univ Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637 USA
[3] Dana Farber Canc Inst, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[4] Univ Texas, MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Houston, TX 77030 USA
[5] Univ Calif San Francisco, Med Ctr, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
[6] Massachusetts Gen Hosp, Boston, MA 02114 USA
[7] Univ Calif Los Angeles, Jonsson Comprehens Canc Ctr, Los Angeles, CA 90024 USA
[8] Univ Kansas, Med Ctr, Kansas City, KS 66103 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1093/jnci/94.11.844
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Background: Because BRCA gene mutation testing is costly, occasionally uninformative, and frequently associated with ethical and legal issues, careful patient selection is required prior to testing. Estimation of BRCA gene mutation probability is an important component of pretest counseling, but the accuracy of these estimates is currently unknown. We measured the performance of eight cancer risk counselors and of a computer model, BRCAPRO, at identifying families likely to carry a BRCA gene mutation. Methods: Eight cancer risk counselors and the computer model BRCAPRO estimated BRCA gene mutation probabilities for 148 pedigrees selected from an initial sample of 272 pedigrees. The final sample was limited to pedigrees with a proband affected by breast or ovarian cancer and BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene sequencing results unequivocally reported as negative or positive for a deleterious mutation. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value, and areas under receiver operator characteristics (ROC) curves were calculated for each risk counselor and for BRCAPRO. All statistical tests were two sided. Results: Using a greater-than-10% BRCA gene mutation probability threshold, the median sensitivity for identifying mutation carriers was 94% (range = 81% to 98%) for the eight risk counselors and 92% (range = 91% to 92%) for BRCAPRO. Median specificity at this threshold was 16% (range = 6% to 34%) for the risk counselors and 32% (range = 30% to 34%) for BRCAPRO (P =.04). Median area under the ROC curves was 0.671 for the risk counselors (range = 0.620 to 0.717) and 0.712 (range = 0.706 to 0.720) for BRCAPRO (P =.04). There was a slight, but not statistically significant, improvement in all counselor performance measures when BRCAPRO-assigned gene mutation probability information was included with the pedigrees. Conclusions: Sensitivity for identifying BRCA gene mutation carriers is similar for experienced risk counselors and the computer model BRCAPRO. Because the computer model consistently demonstrated superior specificity, overall discrimination between BRCA gene mutation carriers and BRCA gene mutation noncarriers was slightly better for BRCAPRO.
引用
收藏
页码:844 / 851
页数:8
相关论文
共 30 条
  • [21] BRCA1 genomic deletions are major founder mutations in Dutch breast cancer patients
    PetrijBosch, A
    Peelen, T
    vanVliet, M
    vanEijk, R
    Olmer, R
    Drusedau, M
    Hogervorst, FBL
    Hageman, S
    Arts, PJW
    Ligtenberg, MJL
    MeijersHeijboer, H
    Klijn, JGM
    Vasen, HFA
    Cornelisse, CJ
    vantVeer, LJ
    Bakker, E
    vanOmmen, GJB
    Devilee, P
    [J]. NATURE GENETICS, 1997, 17 (03) : 341 - 345
  • [22] Puget N, 1997, CANCER RES, V57, P828
  • [23] Breast cancer risk after bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy in BRCA1 mutation carriers
    Rebbeck, TR
    Levin, AM
    Eisen, A
    Snyder, C
    Watson, P
    Cannon-Albright, L
    Isaacs, C
    Olopade, O
    Garber, JE
    Godwin, AK
    Daly, MB
    Narod, SA
    Neuhausen, SL
    Lynch, HT
    Weber, BL
    [J]. JNCI-JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 1999, 91 (17): : 1475 - 1479
  • [24] Schubert EK, 1997, AM J HUM GENET, V60, P1031
  • [25] BRCA 1 sequence analysis in women at high risk for susceptibility mutations - Risk factor analysis and implications for genetic testing
    ShattuckEidens, D
    Oliphant, A
    McClure, M
    McBride, C
    Gupte, J
    Rubano, T
    Pruss, D
    Tavtigian, SV
    Teng, DHF
    Adey, N
    Staebell, M
    Gumpper, K
    Lundstrom, R
    Hulick, M
    Kelly, M
    Holmen, J
    Lingenfelter, B
    Manley, S
    Fujimura, F
    Luce, M
    Ward, B
    CannonAlbright, L
    Steele, L
    Offit, K
    Gilewski, T
    Norton, L
    Brown, K
    Schulz, C
    Hampel, H
    Schluger, A
    Giulotto, E
    Zoli, W
    Ravaioli, A
    Nevanlinna, H
    Pyrhonen, S
    Rowley, P
    Loader, S
    Osborne, MP
    Daly, M
    Tepler, I
    Weinstein, PL
    Scalia, JL
    Michaelson, R
    Scott, RJ
    Radice, P
    Pierotti, MA
    Garber, JE
    Isaacs, C
    Peshkin, B
    Lippman, ME
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1997, 278 (15): : 1242 - 1250
  • [26] The risk of cancer associated with specific mutations of BRCA1 and BRCA2 among Ashkenazi Jews
    Struewing, JP
    Hartge, P
    Wacholder, S
    Baker, SM
    Berlin, M
    McAdams, M
    Timmerman, MM
    Brody, LC
    Tucker, MA
    [J]. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1997, 336 (20) : 1401 - 1408
  • [27] Thorlacius S, 1997, AM J HUM GENET, V60, P1079
  • [28] A probability model for predicting BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in breast and breast-ovarian cancer families
    Vahteristo, P
    Eerola, H
    Tamminen, A
    Blomqvist, C
    Nevanlinna, H
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2001, 84 (05) : 704 - 708
  • [29] The kin-cohort study for estimating penetrance
    Wacholder, S
    Hartge, P
    Struewing, JP
    Pee, D
    McAdams, M
    Brody, L
    Tucker, M
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1998, 148 (07) : 623 - 630
  • [30] Weber BL, 2000, AM J HUM GENET, V67, P59