Comparison between CaGene 5.1 and 6.0 for BRCA1/2 mutation prediction: a retrospective study of 150 BRCA1/2 genetic tests in 517 families with breast/ovarian cancer

Article metrics

Abstract

During the past years, several empirical and statistical models have been developed to discriminate between carriers and non-carriers of germline BRCA1/BRCA2 (breast cancer 1, early onset/breast cancer 2, early onset) mutations in families with hereditary breast or ovarian cancer. Among these, the BRCAPRO or CaGene model is commonly used during genetic counseling, and plays a central role in the identification of potential carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations. We compared performance and clinical applicability of BRCAPRO version 5.1 vs version 6.0 in order to assess diagnostic accuracy of updated version. The study was carried out on 517 pedigrees of patients with familial history of breast or ovarian cancer, 150 of which were submitted to BRCA1/2 mutation screening, according to BRCAPRO evaluation or to criteria based on familial history. In our study, CaGene 5.1 was more sensitive than CaGene 6.0, although the latter showed a higher specificity. Both BRCAPRO versions better discriminate BRCA1 than BRCA2 mutations. This study evidenced similar performances in the two BRCAPRO versions even if the CaGene 6.0 has underestimated the genetic risk prediction in some BRCA mutation-positive families. Genetic counselors should recognize this limitation and during genetic counseling would be advisable to use a set of criteria in order to improve mutation carrier prediction.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1
Figure 2

References

  1. 1

    Karami, F. & Mehdipour, P. A comprehensive focus on global spectrum of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in breast cancer. Biomed Res. Int. 2013, 928562 (2013).

  2. 2

    Kwon, J. S., Gutierrez-Barrera, A. M., Young, D., Sun, C. C., Daniels, M. S., Lu, K. H. et al. Expanding the criteria for BRCA mutation testing in breast cancer survivors. J. Clin. Oncol. 28, 4214–4220 (2012).

  3. 3

    Frank, T. S., Deffenbaugh, A. M., Reid, J. E., Hulick, M., Ward, B. E., Lingenfelter, B. et al. Clinical characteristics of individuals with germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2: analysis of 10,000 individuals. J. Clin. Oncol. 20, 1480–1490 (2002).

  4. 4

    Antoniou, A., Pharoah, P. D., Narod, S., Risch, H. A., Eyfjord, J. E., Hopper, J. L. et al. Average risks of breast and ovarian cancer associated with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations detected in case series unselected for family history: a combined analysis of 22 studies. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 72, 1117–1130 (2003).

  5. 5

    Nelson, H. D., Huffman, L. H., Fu, R. & Harris, E. L. Genetic risk assessment and BRCA mutation testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility: systematic evidence review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann. Intern. Med. 143, 362–379 (2005).

  6. 6

    Christinat, A. & Pagani, O. Practical aspects of genetic counseling in breast cancer: lights and shadows. Breast 22, 375–382 (2013).

  7. 7

    Antoniou, A. C., Pharoah, P. D., McMullan, G., Day, N. E., Stratton, M. R., Peto, J. et al. A comprehensive model for familial breast cancer incorporating BRCA1, BRCA2 and other genes. Br. J. Cancer. 86, 76–83 (2002).

  8. 8

    DeJong, M. M., Nolte, I. M., te Meerman, G. J., van der Graaf, W. T. A., Oosterwijk, J. C., Kleibeuker, J. H. et al. Genes other than BRCA1 and BRCA2 involved in breast cancer susceptibility. J. Med. Genet. 39, 225–242 (2002).

  9. 9

    Brose, M. S., Rebbeck, T. R., Calzone, K. A., Stopfer, J. E., Nathanson, K. L. & Weber, B. L. Cancer risk estimates for BRCA1 mutation carriers identified in a risk evaluation program. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 94, 1365–1372 (2002).

  10. 10

    Easton, D. F., Hopper, J. L., Thomas, D. C., Antoniou, A., Pharoah, P. D., Whittemore, A. S. et al. Breast cancer risks for BRCA1/2 carriers. Science 306, 2187–2191 (2004).

  11. 11

    Wacholder, S., Struewing, J. P., Hartge, P., Greene, M. H. & Tucker, M. A. Breast cancer risks for BRCA1/2 carriers. Science 306, 2187–2191 (2004).

  12. 12

    Laraqui, A., Uhrhammer, N., Lahlou-Amine, I., El Rhaffouli, H., El Baghdadi, J., Dehayni, M. et al. Mutation screening of the BRCA1 gene in early onset and familial breast/ovarian cancer in Moroccan population. Int. J. Med. Sci. 10, 60–67 (2013).

  13. 13

    Rebbeck, T. R., Friebel, T., Lynch, H. T., Neuhausen, S. L., van 't Veer, L., Garber, J. E. et al. Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy reduces breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: the PROSE Study Group. J. Clin. Oncol. 22, 1055–1062 (2004).

  14. 14

    Kang, H. H., Williams, R., Leary, J., k ConFab Investigators, Ringland, C., Kirk, J., Ward, R. et al. Evaluation of models to predict BRCA germline mutations. Br. J. Cancer. 95, 914–920 (2006).

  15. 15

    Tuttle, T. M., Abbott, A., Arrington, A. & Rueth, N. The increasing use of prophylactic mastectomy in the prevention of breast cancer. Curr. Oncol. Rep. 12, 16–21 (2010).

  16. 16

    Pocobelli, G., Chubak, J., Hanson, N., Drescher, C., Resta, R., Urban, N. et al. Prophylactic oophorectomy rates in relation to a guideline update on referral to genetic counseling. Gynecol. Oncol. 126, 229–235 (2012).

  17. 17

    American Society of Clinical Oncology. American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement update: genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. J. Clin. Oncol. 21, 2397–2406 (2003).

  18. 18

    Euhus, D. M., Smith, K. C., Robinson, L., Stucky, A., Olopade, O. I., Cummings, S. et al. Pretest prediction of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation by risk counselors and the computer model BRCAPRO. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 94, 844–851 (2002).

  19. 19

    James, P. A., Doherty, R., Harris, M., Mukesh, B. N., Milner, A., Young, M. A. et al. Optimal selection of individuals for BRCA mutation testing: a comparison of available methods. J. Clin. Oncol. 24, 707–715 (2006).

  20. 20

    Oros, K. K., Ghadirian, P., Maugard, C. M., Perret, C., Paredes, Y., Mes-Masson, A. M. et al. Application of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carrier prediction models in breast and/or ovarian cancer families of French Canadian descent. Clin. Genet. 70, 320–329 (2006).

  21. 21

    Parmigiani, G., Chen, S., Iversen, E. S. Jr, Friebel, T. M., Finkelstein, D. M., Anton-Culver, H. et al. Validity of models for predicting BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. Ann. Intern. Med. 147, 441–450 (2007).

  22. 22

    Jacobi, C. E., de Bock, G. H., Siegerink, B. & van Asperen, C. J. Differences and similarities in breast cancer risk assessment models in clinical practice: which model to choose? Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 115, 381–390 (2009).

  23. 23

    Berry, D. A., Iversen, E. S. Jr, Gudbjartsson, D. F., Hiller, E. H., Garber, J. E., Peshkin, B. N. et al. BRCAPRO validation, sensitivity of genetic testing of BRCA1/BRCA2, and prevalence of other breast cancer susceptibility genes. J. Clin. Oncol. 20, 2701–2712 (2002).

  24. 24

    Domchek, S. M., Eisen, A., Calzone, K., Stopfer, J., Blackwood, A. & Weber, B. Application of breast cancer risk prediction models in clinical practice. J. Clin. Oncol. 21, 593–601 (2003).

  25. 25

    Stuppia, L., Di Fulvio, P., Aceto, G., Pintor, S., Veschi, S., Gatta, V. et al. BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in breast/ovarian cancer patients from central Italy. Hum. Mutat. 22, 178–179 (2003).

  26. 26

    Evans, D. G., Eccles, D. M., Rahman, N., Young, K., Bulman, M., Amir, E. et al. A new scoring system for the chances of identifying a BRCA1/2 mutation outperforms existing models including BRCAPRO. J. Med. Genet. 41, 474–480 (2004).

  27. 27

    Veschi, S., Aceto, G., Scioletti, A. P., Gatta, V., Palka, G., Cama, A. et al. High prevalence of BRCA1 deletions in BRCAPRO-positive patients with high carrier probability. Ann. Oncol. 18, 86–92 (2007).

  28. 28

    Biswas, S., Tankhiwale, N., Blackford, A., Barrera, A. M., Ready, K., Lu, K. et al. Assessing the added value of breast tumor markers in genetic risk prediction model BRCAPRO. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 133, 347–355 (2012).

  29. 29

    Biswas, S., Atienza, P., Chipman, J., Hughes, K., Barrera, A. M., Amos, C. I. et al. Simplifying clinical use of the genetic risk prediction model BRCAPRO. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 139, 571–579 (2013).

  30. 30

    Varesco, L., Viassolo, V., Viel, A., Gismondi, V., Radice, P., Montagna, M. et al. Performance of BOADICEA and BRCAPRO genetic models and of empirical criteria based on cancer family history for predicting BRCA mutation carrier probabilities: a retrospective study in a sample of Italian cancer genetics clinics. Breast 22, 1130–1135 (2013).

  31. 31

    Kwong, A., Wong, C. H., Suen, D. T., Co, M., Kurian, A. W., West, D. W. et al. Accuracy of BRCA1/2 mutation prediction models for different ethnicities and genders: experience in a southern Chinese cohort. World J. Surg. 36, 702–713 (2012).

  32. 32

    Van Harssel, J. J., van Roozendaal, C. E., Detisch, Y., Brandão, R. D., Paulussen, A. D., Zeegers, M. et al. Efficiency of BRCAPRO and Myriad II mutation probability thresholds versus cancer history criteria alone for BRCA1/2 mutation detection. Fam. Cancer 9, 193–201 (2010).

  33. 33

    Schneegans, S. M., Rosenberger, A., Engel, U., Sander, M., Emons, G. & Shoukier, M. Validation of three BRCA1/2 mutation-carrier probability models Myriad, BRCAPRO and BOADICEA in a population-based series of 183 German families. Fam. Cancer 11, 181–188 (2012).

  34. 34

    Metz, C. E. Basic principles of ROC analysis. Semin. Nucl. Med. 8, 283–298 (1978).

  35. 35

    Somoza, E., Soutullo-Esperon, L. & Mossman, D. Evaluation and optimization of diagnostic tests using receiver operating characteristic analysis and information theory. Int. J. Biomed. Comput. 24, 153–189 (1989).

  36. 36

    Hadjisavvas, A., Adamou, A., O'Dowd Phanis, C., Todd, C. M., Kitsios, P., Kyriacou, K. et al. Q356R and S1512I are BRCA1 variants that may be associated with breast cancer in a Cypriot family. Oncol. Rep. 9, 383–386 (2002).

  37. 37

    Robson, M. & Offit, K. Clinical practice. Management of an inherited predisposition to breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 357, 154–162 (2007).

  38. 38

    Meiser, B., Tucker, K., Friedlander, M., Barlow-Stewart, K., Lobb, E., Saunders, C. et al. Genetic counselling and testing for inherited gene mutations in newly diagnosed patients with breast cancer: a review of the existing literature and a proposed research agenda. Breast Cancer Res. 10, 216 (2008).

  39. 39

    Pal, T. & Vadaparampil, S. T. Genetic risk assessments in individuals at high risk for inherited breast cancer in the breast oncology care setting. Cancer Control 19, 255–266 (2012).

  40. 40

    Stuppia, L. BRCA1 and BRCA2 molecular testing in women with different risk of hereditary breast cancer: cost/effectiveness and psychological implications. Curr. Womens Health Rev. 8, 12–16 (2012).

  41. 41

    Halbert, C. H. Decisions and outcomes of genetic testing for inherited breast cancer risk. Ann. Oncol. 15, I35–I39 (2004).

  42. 42

    Cipollini, G., Tommasi, S., Paradiso, A., Aretini, P., Bonatti, F., Brunetti, I. et al. Genetic alterations in hereditary breast cancer. Ann. Oncol. 15, I7–I13 (2004).

  43. 43

    Barcenas, C. H., Hosain, G. M., Arun, B., Zong, J., Zhou, X., Chen, J. et al. Assessing BRCA carrier probabilities in extended families. J. Clin. Oncol. 24, 354–360 (2006).

  44. 44

    Marroni, F., Aretini, P., D'Andrea, E., Caligo, M. A., Cortesi, L., Viel, A. et al. Evaluation of widely used models for predicting BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. J. Med. Genet. 41, 278–285 (2004).

  45. 45

    Ready, K. J., Vogel, K. J., Atchley, D. P., Broglio, K. R., Solomon, K. K., Amos, C. et al. Accuracy of the BRCAPRO model among women with bilateral breast cancer. Cancer 115, 725–730 (2009).

  46. 46

    Bodmer, D., Ligtenberg, M. J., van der Hout, A. H., Gloudemans, S., Ansink, K., Oosterwijk, J. C. et al. Optimal selection for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation testing using a combination of 'easy to apply' probability models. Br. J. Cancer 95, 757–762 (2006).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Drs Patrizia Di Fulvio, Paola Scioletti and Stefano Valbonesi for technical support. This work was supported by a grant of the G. d’Annunzio University to LS.

Author information

Correspondence to Liborio Stuppia.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark