Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Familial Cancer
Published in: Familial Cancer 2/2012

Open Access 01-06-2012 | Original Article

Validation of three BRCA1/2 mutation-carrier probability models Myriad, BRCAPRO and BOADICEA in a population-based series of 183 German families

Authors: S. M. Schneegans, A. Rosenberger, U. Engel, M. Sander, G. Emons, M. Shoukier

Published in: Familial Cancer | Issue 2/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

Many studies have evaluated the performance of risk assessment models for BRCA1/2 mutation carrier probabilities in different populations, but to our knowledge very few studies have been conducted in the German population so far. In the recent study, we validated the performance of three risk calculation models by names BRCAPRO, Myriad and BOADICEA in 183 German families who had undergone molecular testing of mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 with an indication based on clinical criteria regarding their family history of cancer. The sensitivity and specificity at the conventional threshold of 10% as well as for a threshold of 20% were evaluated. The ability to discriminate between carriers and non-carriers was judged by the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve. We further focused on the performance characteristic of these models in patients carrying large genomic rearrangements as a subtype of mutations which is currently gaining increasing importance. BRCAPRO and BOADICEA performed almost equally well in our patient population, but we found a lack of agreement to Myriad. The results obtained from this study were consistent with previously published results from other population and racial/ethnic groups. We suggest using model specific decision thresholds instead of the recommended universal value of 10%. We further suggest integrating the CaGene5 software package, which includes BRCAPRO and Myriad, in the genetic counselling of German families with suspected inherited breast and ovarian cancer because of the good performance of BRCAPRO and the substantial ease of use of this software.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D (2011) Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 61(2):69–90PubMedCrossRef
2.
Zbuk K, Anand SS (2012) Declining incidence of breast cancer after decreased use of hormone-replacement therapy: magnitude and time lags in different countries. J Epidemiol Community Health 66(1):1–7PubMedCrossRef
3.
Autier P, Boniol M, La Vecchia C et al (2010) Disparities in breast cancer mortality trends between 30 European countries: retrospective trend analysis of WHO mortality database. BMJ 341:c3620PubMedCrossRef
4.
Jemal A, Center MM, DeSantis C, EM Ward (2010) Global patterns of cancer incidence, mortality rates, trends. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 19(8):1893–1907PubMedCrossRef
5.
Ford D, Easton DF, Stratton M et al (1998) Genetic heterogeneity, penetrance analysis of the BRCA1, BRCA2 genes in breast cancer families. The breast cancer linkage consortium. Am J Hum Genet 62(3):676–689PubMedCrossRef
6.
Carroll JC, Cremin C, Allanson J et al (2008) Hereditary breast and ovarian cancers. Can Fam Physician 54(12):1691–1692PubMed
7.
Meindl A, Hellebrand H, Wiek C et al (2010) Germline mutations in breast, ovarian cancer pedigrees establish RAD51C as a human cancer susceptibility gene. Nat Genet 42(5):410–414PubMedCrossRef
8.
Stegel V, Krajc M, Zgajnar J et al (2011) The occurrence of germline BRCA1, BRCA2 sequence alterations in Slovenian population. BMC Med Genet 12:9PubMedCrossRef
9.
Gadzicki D, Evans DG, Harris H et al (2011) Genetic testing for familial/hereditary breast cancer—comparison of guidelines and recommendations from the UK, France, The Netherlands and Germany. J Community Genet 2:53–69PubMedCrossRef
10.
Amir E, Freedman OC, Seruga B, Evans DG (2010) Assessing women at high risk of breast cancer: a review of risk assessment models. J Natl Cancer Inst 102(10):680–691PubMedCrossRef
11.
Kuschel B, Hauenstein E, Kiechle M, Meindl A (2006) Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer—current clinical guidelines in Germany. Breast Care 1:8–14CrossRef
12.
Katki H (2007) Incorporating medical interventions into carrier probability estimation for genetic counseling. BMC Med Genet 8:13PubMedCrossRef
13.
Kurian AW, Gong GD, John EM et al (2009) Performance of prediction models for BRCA mutation carriage in three racial/ethnic groups: findings from the Northern California breast cancer family registry. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 18(4):1084–1091PubMedCrossRef
14.
Schmutzler R, Beckmann M, Kiechle M (2002) Prevention: hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Dtsch Arztebl 99:A1372–A1378
15.
Kreienberg R, Kopp I, Albert U et al. (2008) Interdisziplinare S3-leitlinie fur die diagnostik, therapie und nachsorge des mammakarzinoms. Munich, W. Zuckschwerdt Verlag GmbH
16.
Bayraktar S, Elsayegh N, Gutierrez Barrera AM et al. (2011) Predictive factors for BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations in women with ductal carcinoma in situ. Cancer
17.
Cremin C, Wong N, Buzaglo K, Paradis AJ, Foulkes W (2002) Nonovarian pelvic cancers in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and the BRCAPRO statistical model. J Clin Oncol 20(18):3936PubMedCrossRef
18.
DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL (1988) Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 44(3):837–845PubMedCrossRef
19.
Antoniou AC, Hardy R, Walker L et al (2008) Predicting the likelihood of carrying a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation: validation of BOADICEA, BRCAPRO, IBIS, Myriad, the Manchester scoring system using data from UK genetics clinics. J Med Genet 45(7):425–431PubMedCrossRef
20.
Kurian AW, Gong GD, Chun NM et al (2008) Performance of BRCA1/2 mutation prediction models in Asian Americans. J Clin Oncol 26(29):4752–4758PubMedCrossRef
21.
Lindor NM, Lindor RA, Apicella C et al (2007) Predicting BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers: comparison of LAMBDA, BRCAPRO, Myriad II, and modified Couch models. Fam Cancer 6(4):473–482PubMedCrossRef
22.
Kang HH, Williams R, Leary J, Ringland C, Kirk J, Ward R (2006) Evaluation of models to predict BRCA germline mutations. Br J Cancer 95(7):914–920PubMedCrossRef
23.
Panchal SM, Ennis M, Canon S, Bordeleau LJ (2008) Selecting a BRCA risk assessment model for use in a familial cancer clinic. BMC Med Genet 9:116PubMedCrossRef
24.
Fasching PA, Bani MR, Nestle-Kramling C et al (2007) Evaluation of mathematical models for breast cancer risk assessment in routine clinical use. Eur J Cancer Prev 16(3):216–224PubMedCrossRef
25.
Beckmann MW, Bani MR, Fasching PA, Strick R, Lux MP (2007) Risk and risk assessment for breast cancer: molecular and clinical aspects. Maturitas 57(1):56–60PubMedCrossRef
26.
Kast K, Schmutzler RK, Distler W et al. (2009) Prevalence rates of pathogenic mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in families with different disease histories: results from the German consortium for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Cancer Res 69(24):731S-S
27.
Backe J, Hofferbert S, Skawran B et al (1999) Frequency of BRCA1 mutation 5382insC in German breast cancer patients. Gynecol Oncol 72(3):402–406PubMedCrossRef
28.
Roa BB, Boyd AA, Volcik K, Richards CS (1996) Ashkenazi Jewish population frequencies for common mutations in BRCA1, BRCA2. Nat Genet 14(2):185–187PubMedCrossRef
29.
Vaidyanathan K, Lakhotia S, Ravishankar HM, Tabassum U, Mukherjee G, Somasundaram K (2009) BRCA1, BRCA2 germline mutation analysis among Indian women from south India: identification of four novel mutations, high-frequency occurrence of 185delAG mutation. J Biosci 34(3):415–422PubMedCrossRef
30.
Mullineaux LG, Castellano TM, Shaw J et al (2003) Identification of germline 185delAG BRCA1 mutations in non-Jewish Americans of Spanish ancestry from the San Luis Valley, Colorado. Cancer 98(3):597–602PubMedCrossRef
31.
Zanna I, Rizzolo P, Sera F et al (2010) The BRCAPRO 5.0 model is a useful tool in genetic counseling, clinical management of male breast cancer cases. Eur J Hum Genet 18(7):856–858PubMedCrossRef
32.
Sluiter MD, van Rensburg EJ (2011) Large genomic rearrangements of the BRCA1, BRCA2 genes: review of the literature, report of a novel BRCA1 mutation. Breast Cancer Res Treat 125(2):325–349PubMedCrossRef
33.
Engert S, Wappenschmidt B, Betz B et al (2008) MLPAscreening in the BRCA1 gene from 1, 506 German hereditary breast cancer cases: novel deletions, frequent involvement of exon 17, occurrence in single early-onset cases. Hum Mutat 29(7):948–958PubMedCrossRef
34.
Veschi S, Aceto G, Scioletti AP et al (2007) High prevalence of BRCA1 deletions in BRCAPRO-positive patients with high carrier probability. Ann Oncol 18(6):vi86–vi92PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Validation of three BRCA1/2 mutation-carrier probability models Myriad, BRCAPRO and BOADICEA in a population-based series of 183 German families
Authors
S. M. Schneegans
A. Rosenberger
U. Engel
M. Sander
G. Emons
M. Shoukier
Publication date
01-06-2012
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Familial Cancer / Issue 2/2012
Print ISSN: 1389-9600
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7292
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-011-9498-y

Other articles of this Issue 2/2012

Familial Cancer 2/2012 Go to the issue

Original Article

Psychological distress in newly diagnosed colorectal cancer patients following microsatellite instability testing for Lynch syndrome on the pathologist’s initiative

Review

Hereditary medullary thyroid carcinoma: the management dilemma

Original Article

Looking different, feeling different: women’s reactions to risk-reducing breast and ovarian surgery

Short Communication

Prevalence of TP53 germ line mutations in young Pakistani breast cancer patients

Original Article

Active surveillance of renal masses in von Hippel-Lindau disease: growth rates and clinical outcome over a median follow-up period of 56 months

Original Article

French women’s breast self-examination practices with time after undergoing BRCA1/2 genetic testing
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits