Evaluation of models to predict BRCA germline mutations

The selection of candidates for BRCA germline mutation testing is an important clinical issue yet it remains a significant challenge. A number of risk prediction models have been developed to assist in pretest counselling. We have evaluated the performance and the inter-rater reliability of four of these models (BRCAPRO, Manchester, Penn and the Myriad-Frank). The four risk assessment models were applied to 380 pedigrees of families who had undergone BRCA1/2 mutation analysis. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, likelihood ratios and area under the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve were calculated for each model. Using a greater than 10% probability threshold, the likelihood that a BRCA test result was positive in a mutation carrier compared to the likelihood that the same result would be expected in an individual without a BRCA mutation was 2.10 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.66–2.67) for Penn, 1.74 (95% CI 1.48–2.04) for Myriad, 1.35 (95% CI 1.19–1.53) for Manchester and 1.68 (95% CI 1.39–2.03) for BRCAPRO. Application of these models, therefore, did not rule in BRCA mutation carrier status. Similar trends were observed for separate BRCA1/2 performance measures except BRCA2 assessment in the Penn model where the positive likelihood ratio was 5.93. The area under the ROC curve for each model was close to 0.75. In conclusion, the four models had very little impact on the pre-test probability of disease; there were significant clinical barriers to using some models and risk estimates varied between experts. Use of models for predicting BRCA mutation status is not currently justified for populations such as that evaluated in the current study

Selecting a BRCA risk assessment model for use in a familial cancer clinic

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Risk models are used to calculate the likelihood of carrying a <it>BRCA1 </it>or <it>BRCA2 </it>mutation. We evaluated the performances of currently-used risk models among patients from a large familial program using the criteria of high sensitivity, simple data collection and entry and <it>BRCA </it>score reporting.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Risk calculations were performed by applying the BRCAPRO, Manchester, Penn II, Myriad II, FHAT, IBIS and BOADICEA models to 200 non-<it>BRCA </it>carriers and 100 <it>BRCA </it>carriers, consecutively tested between August 1995 and March 2006. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) were determined and sensitivity and specificity were calculated at the conventional testing thresholds. In addition, subset analyses were performed for low and high risk probands.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The BRCAPRO, Penn II, Myriad II, FHAT and BOADICEA models all have similar AUCs of approximately 0.75 for <it>BRCA </it>status. The Manchester and IBIS models have lower AUCs (0. and 0.47 respectively). At the conventional testing thresholds, the sensitivities and specificities for a <it>BRCA </it>mutation were, respectively, as follows: BRCAPRO (0.75, 0.62), Manchester (0.58,0.71), Penn II (0.93,0.31), Myriad II (0.71,0.63), FHAT (0.70,0.63), IBIS (0.20,0.74), BOADICEA (0.70, 0.65).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The Penn II model most closely met the criteria we established and this supports the use of this model for identifying individuals appropriate for genetic testing at our facility. These data are applicable to other familial clinics provided that variations in sample populations are taken into consideration.</p

Multimarker RT–PCR assay for the detection of minimal residual disease in sentinel lymph nodes of breast cancer patients

The presence of metastases in lymph nodes is the most powerful prognostic factor in breast cancer patients. Routine histological examination of lymph nodes has limited sensitivity for the detection of breast cancer metastases. The aim of the present study was to develop a multimarker reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction (RT—PCR) assay for the detection of minimal residual disease in sentinel nodes of breast cancer patients. RNA was extracted from 30 sentinel lymph nodes (SLN) obtained from 28 patients, three primary breast cancers (positive controls), three lymph nodes from patients with benign diseases, and peripheral blood lymphocytes of 10 healthy volunteers (negative controls). RT–PCR was performed using the following markers; cytokeratin (CK)-19, NY-BR-1 and mammaglobin B. RT–PCR results were compared to enhanced histopathologic examination and immunohistochemistry (IHC). All three positive controls showed strong PCR amplification for all three markers. None of the 13 negative controls was amplified by any of the three markers. Among the 30 SLN analysed, breast cancer metastases were detected in six SLNs by routine histology, in eight by IHC and in 15 by RT–PCR. We conclude that a multimarker RT–PCR assay probing for NY-BR-1, mammaglobin-B, and CK-19 is more sensitive compared to enhanced pathologic examination. This method may prove to be of value in breast cancer staging and prognosis evaluation

Effect of manipulation of primary tumour vascularity on metastasis in an adenocarcinoma model

One explanation for the clinical association between tumour vascularity and probability of metastasis is that increased primary tumour vascularity enhances haematogenous dissemination by offering greater opportunity for tumour cell invasion into the circulation (intravasation). We devised an experimental tumour metastasis model that allowed manipulation of primary tumour vascularity with differential exposure of the primary and metastatic tumour site to angiogenic agents. We used this model to assess the effects of local and systemic increases in the level of the angiogenic agent basic fibroblast growth factor on metastasis. BDIX rats with implanted hind limb K12/TR adenocarcinoma tumours received either intratumoural or systemic, basic fibroblast growth factor or saline infusion. Both intratumoural and systemic basic fibroblast growth factor infusion resulted in significant increases in tumour vascularity, blood flow and growth, but not lung metastasis, compared with saline-infused controls. Raised basic fibroblast growth factor levels and increase in primary tumour vascularity did not increase metastasis. The clinical association between tumour vascularity and metastasis is most likely to arise from a metastatic tumour genotype that links increased tumour vascularity with greater metastatic potential

Axillary lymph node dissection for breast cancer utilizing Harmonic Focus®

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>For patients with axillary lymph node metastases from breast cancer, performance of a complete axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) is the standard approach. Due to the rich lymphatic network in the axilla, it is necessary to carefully dissect and identify all lymphatic channels. Traditionally, these lymphatics are sealed with titanium clips or individually sutured. Recently, the Harmonic Focus^®, a hand-held ultrasonic dissector, allows lymphatics to be sealed without the utilization of clips or ties. We hypothesize that ALND performed with the Harmonic Focus^®will decrease operative time and reduce post-operative complications.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Retrospective review identified all patients who underwent ALND at a teaching hospital between January of 2005 and December of 2009. Patient demographics, presenting pathology, treatment course, operative time, days to drain removal, and surgical complications were recorded. Comparisons were made to a selected control group of patients who underwent similar surgical procedures along with an ALND performed utilizing hemostatic clips and electrocautery. A total of 41 patients were included in this study.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Operative time was not improved with the use of ultrasonic dissection, however, there was a decrease in the total number of days that closed suction drainage was required, although this was not statistically significant. Complication rates were similar between the two groups.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In this case-matched retrospective review, there were fewer required days of closed suction drainage when ALND was performed with ultrasonic dissection versus clips and electrocautery.</p

Predictive models for mutations in mismatch repair genes: implication for genetic counseling in developing countries

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Lynch syndrome (LS) is the most common form of inherited predisposition to colorectal cancer (CRC), accounting for 2-5% of all CRC. LS is an autosomal dominant disease characterized by mutations in the mismatch repair genes mutL homolog 1 (MLH1), mutS homolog 2 (MSH2), postmeiotic segregation increased 1 (PMS1), post-meiotic segregation increased 2 (PMS2) and mutS homolog 6 (MSH6). Mutation risk prediction models can be incorporated into clinical practice, facilitating the decision-making process and identifying individuals for molecular investigation. This is extremely important in countries with limited economic resources. This study aims to evaluate sensitivity and specificity of five predictive models for germline mutations in repair genes in a sample of individuals with suspected Lynch syndrome.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Blood samples from 88 patients were analyzed through sequencing MLH1, MSH2 and MSH6 genes. The probability of detecting a mutation was calculated using the PREMM, Barnetson, MMRpro, Wijnen and Myriad models. To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of the models, receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of the 88 patients included in this analysis, 31 mutations were identified: 16 were found in the MSH2 gene, 15 in the MLH1 gene and no pathogenic mutations were identified in the MSH6 gene. It was observed that the AUC for the PREMM (0.846), Barnetson (0.850), MMRpro (0.821) and Wijnen (0.807) models did not present significant statistical difference. The Myriad model presented lower AUC (0.704) than the four other models evaluated. Considering thresholds of ≥ 5%, the models sensitivity varied between 1 (Myriad) and 0.87 (Wijnen) and specificity ranged from 0 (Myriad) to 0.38 (Barnetson).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The Barnetson, PREMM, MMRpro and Wijnen models present similar AUC. The AUC of the Myriad model is statistically inferior to the four other models.</p

A Genome-Wide Screen for Promoter Methylation in Lung Cancer Identifies Novel Methylation Markers for Multiple Malignancies

BACKGROUND: Promoter hypermethylation coupled with loss of heterozygosity at the same locus results in loss of gene function in many tumor cells. The “rules” governing which genes are methylated during the pathogenesis of individual cancers, how specific methylation profiles are initially established, or what determines tumor type-specific methylation are unknown. However, DNA methylation markers that are highly specific and sensitive for common tumors would be useful for the early detection of cancer, and those required for the malignant phenotype would identify pathways important as therapeutic targets. METHODS AND FINDINGS: In an effort to identify new cancer-specific methylation markers, we employed a high-throughput global expression profiling approach in lung cancer cells. We identified 132 genes that have 5′ CpG islands, are induced from undetectable levels by 5-aza-2′-deoxycytidine in multiple non-small cell lung cancer cell lines, and are expressed in immortalized human bronchial epithelial cells. As expected, these genes were also expressed in normal lung, but often not in companion primary lung cancers. Methylation analysis of a subset (45/132) of these promoter regions in primary lung cancer (n = 20) and adjacent nonmalignant tissue (n = 20) showed that 31 genes had acquired methylation in the tumors, but did not show methylation in normal lung or peripheral blood cells. We studied the eight most frequently and specifically methylated genes from our lung cancer dataset in breast cancer (n = 37), colon cancer (n = 24), and prostate cancer (n = 24) along with counterpart nonmalignant tissues. We found that seven loci were frequently methylated in both breast and lung cancers, with four showing extensive methylation in all four epithelial tumors. CONCLUSIONS: By using a systematic biological screen we identified multiple genes that are methylated with high penetrance in primary lung, breast, colon, and prostate cancers. The cross-tumor methylation pattern we observed for these novel markers suggests that we have identified a partial promoter hypermethylation signature for these common malignancies. These data suggest that while tumors in different tissues vary substantially with respect to gene expression, there may be commonalities in their promoter methylation profiles that represent targets for early detection screening or therapeutic intervention