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

Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of North Texas Health Science Center, 3500 Camp Bowie Blvd, Fort Worth, TX 76107-2699, USA.
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment (Impact Factor: 3.94). 01/2012; 133(1):347-55. DOI: 10.1007/s10549-012-1958-z
Source: PubMed


The BRCAPRO model estimates carrier probabilities for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, and was recently enhanced to use estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) status of breast cancer. No independent assessment of the added value of these markers exists. Moreover, earlier versions of BRCAPRO did not use human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (Her-2/neu) status of breast cancer. Here, we incorporate Her-2/neu in BRCAPRO and validate all the markers. We trained the enhanced model on 406 germline tested individuals, and validated on a separate clinical cohort of 796 individuals for whom test results and family history are available. For model-building, we estimated joint probabilities of ER, PR, and Her-2/neu status for carriers and non-carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations. For validation, we obtained BRCAPRO predictions with and without markers. We calculated area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and correct reclassification rates. The AUC for predicting BRCA1 status among individuals who are carriers of at least one mutation improved when ER and PR were used. The AUC for predicting the presence of either mutation improved when Her-2/neu was added. Use of markers also produced highly significant correct reclassification improvements in both cases. Breast tumor markers are useful for prediction of BRCA1/2 mutation status. ER and PR improve discrimination between BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers while Her-2/neu helps discriminate between carriers and non-carriers, particularly among women who are ER positive and Her-2/neu negative. These results support the use of the enhanced version of BRCAPRO in clinical settings.

Download full-text


Available from: Giovanni Parmigiani, Aug 12, 2014
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: It has become increasingly common to consider BRCA mutation status when determining optimal cancer risk management and treatment options in order to improve patient outcomes. Knowledge about the risk for hereditary cancer at or as close as possible to the time of diagnosis allows patients access to the most risk reduction options available. This paper illustrates the role of genetic risk assessment for hereditary breast cancer, using hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) syndrome as a model due to germline mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2. Specifically, the value of genetic counseling and testing for HBOC across the cancer prevention and control continuum is outlined as it pertains to breast cancer. In recognition of the importance of risk assessment for hereditary breast cancer, leading health professional organizations have developed specific guidelines and recommendations to providers for identification of women at increased risk for carrying a BRCA mutation. Institutional efforts specific to genetic counseling and testing have resulted in the implementation of a model driven by physician recommendation as a referral system for high-risk breast cancer patients. Establishing an infrastructure to support research, education, and outreach initiatives focused on BRCA genetic counseling and testing will provide information that can improve the delivery of cancer genetics services.
    Cancer control: journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center 10/2012; 19(4):255-66. · 3.50 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Risk prediction models are widely used in clinical genetic counselling. Despite their frequent use, the genetic risk models BOADICEA, BRCAPRO, IBIS and extended Claus model (eCLAUS), used to estimate BRCA1/2 mutation carrier probabilities, have never been comparatively evaluated in a large sample from central Europe. Additionally, a novel version of BOADICEA that incorporates tumour pathology information has not yet been validated. Patients and methods: Using data from 7352 German families we estimated BRCA1/2 carrier probabilities under each model and compared their discrimination and calibration. The incremental value of using pathology information in BOADICEA was assessed in a subsample of 4928 pedigrees with available data on breast tumour molecular markers oestrogen receptor, progesterone receptor and human epidermal growth factor 2. Results: BRCAPRO (area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC)=0.80 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.81)) and BOADICEA (AUC=0.79 (0.78-0.80)), had significantly higher diagnostic accuracy than IBIS and eCLAUS (p<0.001). The AUC increased when pathology information was used in BOADICEA: AUC=0.81 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.83, p<0.001). At carrier thresholds of 10% and 15%, the net reclassification index was +3.9% and +5.4%, respectively, when pathology was included in the model. Overall, calibration was best for BOADICEA and worst for eCLAUS. With eCLAUS, twice as many mutation carriers were predicted than observed. Conclusions: Our results support the use of BRCAPRO and BOADICEA for decision making regarding genetic testing for BRCA1/2 mutations. However, model calibration has to be improved for this population. eCLAUS should not be used for estimating mutation carrier probabilities in clinical settings. Whenever possible, breast tumour molecular marker information should be taken into account.
    Journal of Medical Genetics 04/2013; DOI:10.1136/jmedgenet-2012-101415 · 6.34 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    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.
    Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 05/2013; 139(2). DOI:10.1007/s10549-013-2564-4 · 3.94 Impact Factor
Show more