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

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

Abstract Background Risk models are used to calculate the likelihood of carrying a BRCA1 or BRCA2 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 BRCA score reporting. Methods Risk calculations were performed by applying the BRCAPRO, Manchester, Penn II, Myriad II, FHAT, IBIS and BOADICEA models to 200 non-BRCA carriers and 100 BRCA 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. Results The BRCAPRO, Penn II, Myriad II, FHAT and BOADICEA models all have similar AUCs of approximately 0.75 for BRCA 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 BRCA 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). Conclusion 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

Re-examining content validity of the BREAST-Q more than a decade later to determine relevance and comprehensiveness

Abstract Purpose The BREAST-Q is the most used patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) in breast cancer surgery. The purposes of this study were to re-examine the content validity of BREAST-Q cancer modules (mastectomy, lumpectomy and reconstruction) and to determine the need for new scales. Methods Interviews were conducted with women with breast cancer (Stage 0–4, any treatment), and were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Deductive (based on original BREAST-Q conceptual framework) and inductive (new codes from the data) content analysis approaches were used to analyze the data. The number of codes that mapped to BREAST-Q were recorded. Results Dataset included 3948 codes from 58 participants. Most of the breast (n = 659, 96%) and all psychosocial (n = 127, 100%), sexual (n = 179, 100%) and radiation-related (n = 79, 100%) codes mapped to BREAST-Q Satisfaction with Breast, Psychosocial Wellbeing, Sexual Wellbeing and Adverse Effects of Radiation scales, respectively. For the physical wellbeing codes (n = 939) for breast/chest and arm, 34% (n = 321) mapped to the Physical Wellbeing-Chest scale. Most of the abdomen codes (n = 311) mapped to Satisfaction with Abdomen (n = 90, 76%) and Physical Wellbeing-Abdomen (n = 171, 89%) scales. Codes that did not map (n = 697, 30%) covered breast sensation and lymphedema. Concerns related to fatigue, cancer worry, and work impact were most reported and did not map to BREAST-Q. Conclusion The BREAST-Q, which was developed using extensive patient input more than a decade ago, is still relevant. To ensure the BREAST-Q remains comprehensive, new scales for upper extremity lymphedema, breast sensation, fatigue, cancer worry, and work impact were developed

Weight Gain and the Risk of Ovarian Cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers

BackgroundWeight gain and other anthropometric measures on the risk of ovarian cancer for women with BRCA mutations are not known. We conducted a prospective analysis of weight change since age 18, height, body mass index (BMI) at age 18, and current BMI and the risk of developing ovarian cancer among BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.MethodsIn this prospective cohort study, height, weight, and weight at age 18 were collected at study enrollment. Weight was updated biennially. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for ovarian cancer.ResultsThis study followed 4,340 women prospectively. There were 121 incident cases of ovarian cancer. Weight gain of more than 20 kg since age 18 was associated with a 2-fold increased risk of ovarian cancer, compared with women who maintained a stable weight (HR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.13-3.54; P = 0.02). Current BMI of 26.5 kg/m2 or greater was associated with an increased risk of ovarian cancer in BRCA1 mutation carriers, compared with those with a BMI less than 20.8 kg/m2 (Q4 vs. Q1 HR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.04-4.36; P = 0.04). There were no significant associations between height or BMI at age 18 and risk of ovarian cancer.ConclusionsAdult weight gain is a risk factor for ovarian cancer in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.ImpactThese findings emphasize the importance of maintaining a healthy body weight throughout adulthood in women at high risk for ovarian cancer

Bilateral Oophorectomy and the Risk of Breast Cancer in BRCA1 Mutation Carriers: A Reappraisal.

BackgroundThe lack of consensus on whether bilateral oophorectomy impacts risk of developing breast cancer among BRCA1 mutation carriers might be attributed to various biases, specifically, cancer-induced testing bias due to inclusion of prevalent cases. We conducted two complementary matched case-control analyses to evaluate the association of oophorectomy and BRCA1 breast cancer.MethodsA research questionnaire was administered every two years to collect information on exposures and disease. In the first analysis, we limited the study to prevalent breast cancer cases (diagnosed prior to study entry; n = 2,962) who were matched to controls on year of birth and country of residence (n = 4,358). In the second approach, we limited to 330 incident cases (diagnosed in the follow-up period) and 1,548 matched controls. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate the adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of invasive breast cancer.ResultsIn the first approach, there was a significant inverse association between oophorectomy and the risk of developing breast cancer [OR = 0.43; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.34-0.55; P &lt; 00001]. In the second approach, there was no association between oophorectomy and risk (OR = 1.21; 95% CI, 0.87-1.70; P = 0.26).ConclusionsThe inclusion of women with a personal history of breast cancer prior to ascertainment likely impacts upon the association of oophorectomy and BRCA1 breast cancer risk.ImpactOophorectomy is unlikely a determinant of breast cancer risk in BRCA1 mutation carriers but should be offered at age 35 to reduce the risk of ovarian and fallopian tube cancer