Optimization of prediction methods for risk assessment of pathogenic germline variants in the Japanese population.
Adult
Age of Onset
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
BRCA1 Protein
/ genetics
BRCA2 Protein
/ genetics
Breast Neoplasms
/ genetics
Fanconi Anemia Complementation Group N Protein
/ genetics
Female
Genetic Carrier Screening
/ methods
Genetic Predisposition to Disease
Germ-Line Mutation
Humans
Japan
Middle Aged
Mutation Rate
Ovarian Neoplasms
/ genetics
Pedigree
Population Surveillance
Risk Assessment
BRCA
Tyrer-Cuzick model
breast cancer
pathogenic germline variant
risk factor
Journal
Cancer science
ISSN: 1349-7006
Titre abrégé: Cancer Sci
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101168776
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2021
Aug 2021
Historique:
revised:
30
04
2021
received:
16
10
2020
accepted:
06
05
2021
pubmed:
27
5
2021
medline:
20
8
2021
entrez:
26
5
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Predicting pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) in breast cancer patients is important for selecting optimal therapeutics and implementing risk reduction strategies. However, PGV risk factors and the performance of prediction methods in the Japanese population remain unclear. We investigated clinicopathological risk factors using the Tyrer-Cuzick (TC) breast cancer risk evaluation tool to predict BRCA PGVs in unselected Japanese breast cancer patients (n = 1,995). Eleven breast cancer susceptibility genes were analyzed using target-capture sequencing in a previous study; the PGV prevalence in BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2 was 0.75%, 3.1%, and 0.45%, respectively. Significant associations were found between the presence of BRCA PGVs and early disease onset, number of familial cancer cases (up to third-degree relatives), triple-negative breast cancer patients under the age of 60, and ovarian cancer history (all P < .0001). In total, 816 patients (40.9%) satisfied the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for recommending multigene testing. The sensitivity and specificity of the NCCN criteria for discriminating PGV carriers from noncarriers were 71.3% and 60.7%, respectively. The TC model showed good discrimination for predicting BRCA PGVs (area under the curve, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.81). Furthermore, use of the TC model with an optimized cutoff of TC score ≥0.16% in addition to the NCCN guidelines improved the predictive efficiency for high-risk groups (sensitivity, 77.2%; specificity, 54.8%; about 11 genes). Given the influence of ethnic differences on prediction, we consider that further studies are warranted to elucidate the role of environmental and genetic factors for realizing precise prediction.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34036661
doi: 10.1111/cas.14986
pmc: PMC8353892
doi:
Substances chimiques
BRCA1 Protein
0
BRCA1 protein, human
0
BRCA2 Protein
0
BRCA2 protein, human
0
Fanconi Anemia Complementation Group N Protein
0
PALB2 protein, human
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3338-3348Subventions
Organisme : AstraZeneca
ID : NCR-17-12919
Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Authors. Cancer Science published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Japanese Cancer Association.
Références
Breast Cancer Res. 2011;13(6):223
pubmed: 22114898
Breast Cancer. 2020 May;27(3):322-331
pubmed: 32240526
JAMA. 2019 Aug 20;322(7):652-665
pubmed: 31429903
JAMA. 2015 Apr 7;313(13):1347-61
pubmed: 25849179
N Engl J Med. 2000 Jul 13;343(2):78-85
pubmed: 10891514
Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Jul 11;11:543-561
pubmed: 31372057
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2011 May;108(19):323-30
pubmed: 21637635
N Engl J Med. 1997 Sep 11;337(11):788-9
pubmed: 9289641
N Engl J Med. 2008 Nov 13;359(20):2143-53
pubmed: 19005198
Int J Cancer. 2019 Aug 15;145(4):962-973
pubmed: 30702160
Breast Cancer. 2015 Sep;22(5):462-8
pubmed: 24249303
Commun Biol. 2020 Oct 16;3(1):578
pubmed: 33067557
Clin Cancer Res. 2017 Oct 15;23(20):6113-6119
pubmed: 28724667
Cancer. 2015 Jan 1;121(1):25-33
pubmed: 25186627
Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013:747318
pubmed: 23586058
Genet Med. 2019 Aug;21(8):1708-1718
pubmed: 30643217
Clin Cancer Res. 2016 Aug 1;22(15):3971-81
pubmed: 26979395
Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2015 Sep;45(9):884-91
pubmed: 26142437
Cancer Sci. 2021 Aug;112(8):3338-3348
pubmed: 34036661
Cell. 2013 Jan 31;152(3):633-41
pubmed: 23374354
Cancer Inform. 2015 May 10;14(Suppl 2):147-57
pubmed: 25983549
J Clin Oncol. 2014 May 20;32(15):1547-53
pubmed: 24567435
Stat Med. 2004 Apr 15;23(7):1111-30
pubmed: 15057881
N Engl J Med. 2021 Feb 4;384(5):428-439
pubmed: 33471991
Lancet. 2008 Feb 16;371(9612):569-78
pubmed: 18280327
Nat Commun. 2018 Oct 4;9(1):4083
pubmed: 30287823
J Clin Oncol. 2020 May 1;38(13):1409-1418
pubmed: 32125938
J Clin Oncol. 2016 May 1;34(13):1460-8
pubmed: 26976419
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2020 Apr;18(4):380-391
pubmed: 32259785
N Engl J Med. 2015 Jun 4;372(23):2243-57
pubmed: 26014596
Int J Cancer. 2017 Jul 1;141(1):129-142
pubmed: 28294317
N Engl J Med. 2021 Feb 4;384(5):440-451
pubmed: 33471974
Fam Cancer. 2010 Dec;9(4):495-502
pubmed: 20512419
Am J Surg. 2020 Jan;219(1):145-149
pubmed: 31255259
Ann Surg Oncol. 2010 Oct;17 Suppl 3:211-8
pubmed: 20853035
Science. 1994 Oct 7;266(5182):66-71
pubmed: 7545954
NPJ Breast Cancer. 2020 Jun 12;6:25
pubmed: 32566746
JAMA Surg. 2017 Jun 1;152(6):589-594
pubmed: 28423155
PLoS Med. 2017 Jun 30;14(6):e1002335
pubmed: 28666001
J Clin Oncol. 2020 Jun 20;38(18):2080-2106
pubmed: 32243226