Article

Comparison of predictive models, clinical criteria and molecular tumour screening for the identification of patients with Lynch syndrome in a population-based cohort of colorectal cancer patients

Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Vall d'Hebron, Medical Department of Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona, Spain.
Journal of Medical Genetics (Impact Factor: 5.64). 07/2008; 45(9):557-63. DOI: 10.1136/jmg.2008.059311
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Several models have recently been developed to predict mismatch repair (MMR) gene mutations. Their comparative performance with clinical criteria or universal molecular screening in a population based colorectal cancer (CRC) cohort has not been assessed.
All 1222 CRC from the EPICOLON cohort underwent tumour MMR testing with immunohistochemistry and microsatellite instability, and those with MMR deficiency (n = 91) underwent MLH1/MSH2 germline testing. Sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) of the PREMM(1,2) and the Barnetson models for identification of MLH1/MSH2 mutation carriers were evaluated and compared with the revised Bethesda guidelines (RBG), Amsterdam II criteria, and tumour analysis for MMR deficiency. Overall discriminative ability was quantified by the area under the ROC curve (AUC), and calibration was assessed by comparing the average predictions versus the observed prevalence.
Both models had similar AUC (0.93 and 0.92, respectively). Sensitivity of the RBG and a PREMM(1,2) score > or =5% was 100% (95% CI 71% to 100%); a Barnetson score >0.5% missed one mutation carrier (sensitivity 87%, 95% CI 51% to 99%). PPVs of all three strategies were 2-3%. Presence of MMR deficiency increased specificity and PPV of predictive scores (97% and 21% for PREMM(1,2) score > or =5%, and 98% and 21% for Barnetson > or =0.5%, respectively).
The PREMM(1,2) and the Barnetson models offer a quantitative systematic approach to select CRC patients for identification of MLH1/MSH2 mutation carriers with a similar performance to the RBG.

0 Followers
 · 
68 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Multi-Society Task Force, in collaboration with invited experts, developed guidelines to assist health care providers with the appropriate provision of genetic testing and management of patients at risk for and affected with Lynch syndrome as follows: provides a colorectal cancer risk assessment tool to screen individuals in the office or endoscopy setting; illustrates a strategy for universal screening for Lynch syndrome by tumor testing of patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer; -6 provide algorithms for genetic evaluation of affected and at-risk family members of pedigrees with Lynch syndrome; provides guidelines for screening at-risk and affected persons with Lynch syndrome; and lists the guidelines for the management of patients with Lynch syndrome. A detailed explanation of Lynch syndrome and the methodology utilized to derive these guidelines, as well as an explanation of, and supporting literature for, these guidelines are provided.
    Diseases of the Colon & Rectum 08/2014; 57(8):1025-1048. DOI:10.1097/DCR.000000000000000 · 3.20 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Lynch syndrome (LS) is an inherited autosomal dominant disorder characterised by an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) and other cancers, and caused by mutations in the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) mismatch repair genes.
    Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) 09/2014; 18(58):1-406. DOI:10.3310/hta18580 · 5.12 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Approximately 3% of colorectal cancers are associated with Lynch Syndrome. Controversy exists regarding the optimal screening strategy for Lynch Syndrome. Using an individual level microsimulation of a population affected by Lynch syndrome over several years, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 21 screening strategies were compared. Modeling assumptions were based upon published literature, and sensitivity analyses were performed for key assumptions. In a two-step process, the number of Lynch syndrome diagnoses (Step 1) and life-years gained as a result of foreknowledge of Lynch syndrome in otherwise healthy carriers (Step 2) were measured. The optimal strategy was sequential screening for probands starting with a predictive model, then immunohistochemistry for mismatch repair protein expression (IHC), followed by germline mutation testing (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] of $35 143 per life-year gained). The strategies of IHC + BRAF, germline testing and universal germline testing of colon cancer probands had ICERs of $144 117 and $996 878, respectively. This analysis suggests that the initial step in screening for Lynch Syndrome should be the use of predictive models in probands. Universal tumor testing and general population screening strategies are not cost-effective. When family history is unavailable, alternate strategies are appropriate. Documentation of family history and screening for Lynch Syndrome using a predictive model may be considered a quality-of-care measure for patients with colorectal cancer. © The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
    CancerSpectrum Knowledge Environment 04/2015; 107(4). DOI:10.1093/jnci/djv005 · 15.16 Impact Factor