Melbourne School of Population and Global Health - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6
-
ItemEvaluation of models to predict BRCA germline mutations(NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP, 2006-10-09)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.
-
ItemCYP17 genetic polymorphism, breast cancer, and breast cancer risk factors:: Australian Breast Cancer Family Study(BMC, 2005)INTRODUCTION: Because CYP17 can influence the degree of exposure of breast tissues to oestrogen, the interaction between polymorphisms in this gene and hormonal risk factors is of particular interest. We attempted to replicate the findings of studies assessing such interactions with the -34T-->C polymorphism. METHODS: Risk factor and CYP17 genotyping data were derived from a large Australian population-based case-control-family study of 1,284 breast cancer cases and 679 controls. Crude and adjusted odds ratio (OR) estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by unconditional logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: We found no associations between the CYP17 genotype and breast cancer overall. Premenopausal controls with A2/A2 genotype had a later age at menarche (P < 0.01). The only associations near statistical significance were that postmenopausal women with A1/A1 (wild-type) genotype had an increased risk of breast cancer if they had ever used hormone replacement therapy (OR 2.40, 95% CI 1.0 to 5.7; P = 0.05) and if they had menopause after age 47 years (OR 2.59, 95% CI 1.0 to 7.0; P = 0.06). We found no associations in common with any other studies, and no evidence for interactions. CONCLUSION: We observed no evidence of effect modification of reproductive risk factors by CYP17 genotype, although the experiment did not have sufficient statistical power to detect small main effects and modest effects in subgroups. Associations found only in subgroup analyses based on relatively small numbers require cautious interpretation without confirmation by other studies. This emphasizes the need for replication in multiple and large population-based studies to provide convincing evidence for gene-environment interactions.
-
ItemNo Preview AvailableAuthors' reply [11]( 2007-10-01)
-
ItemAnalysis of cancer risk and BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation prevalence in the kConFab familial breast cancer resource(BMC, 2006)INTRODUCTION: The Kathleen Cuningham Foundation Consortium for Research into Familial Breast Cancer (kConFab) is a multidisciplinary, collaborative framework for the investigation of familial breast cancer. Based in Australia, the primary aim of kConFab is to facilitate high-quality research by amassing a large and comprehensive resource of epidemiological and clinical data with biospecimens from individuals at high risk of breast and/or ovarian cancer, and from their close relatives. METHODS: Epidemiological, family history and lifestyle data, as well as biospecimens, are collected from multiple-case breast cancer families ascertained through family cancer clinics in Australia and New Zealand. We used the Tyrer-Cuzick algorithms to assess the prospective risk of breast cancer in women in the kConFab cohort who were unaffected with breast cancer at the time of enrolment in the study. RESULTS: Of kConFab's first 822 families, 518 families had multiple cases of female breast cancer alone, 239 had cases of female breast and ovarian cancer, 37 had cases of female and male breast cancer, and 14 had both ovarian cancer as well as male and female breast cancer. Data are currently held for 11,422 people and germline DNAs for 7,389. Among the 812 families with at least one germline sample collected, the mean number of germline DNA samples collected per family is nine. Of the 747 families that have undergone some form of mutation screening, 229 (31%) carry a pathogenic or splice-site mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2. Germline DNAs and data are stored from 773 proven carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA1 mutations. kConFab's fresh tissue bank includes 253 specimens of breast or ovarian tissue--both normal and malignant--including 126 from carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. CONCLUSION: These kConFab resources are available to researchers anywhere in the world, who may apply to kConFab for biospecimens and data for use in ethically approved, peer-reviewed projects. A high calculated risk from the Tyrer-Cuzick algorithms correlated closely with the subsequent occurrence of breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation positive families, but this was less evident in families in which no pathogenic BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation has been detected.
-
ItemProstate screening uptake in Australian BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers(BIOMED CENTRAL LTD, 2007-09-15)Men who carry mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 are at increased risk for prostate cancer. However the efficacy of prostate screening in this setting is uncertain and limited data exists on the uptake of prostate screening by mutation carriers. This study prospectively evaluated uptake of prostate cancer screening in a multi-institutional cohort of mutation carriers. Subjects were unaffected male BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, aged 40-69 years, enrolled in the Kathleen Cuningham Consortium for Research into Familial Breast Cancer (kConFab) and who had completed a mailed, self-report follow-up questionnaire 3 yearly after study entry. Of the 75 male carriers in this study, only 26 (35%) had elected to receive their mutation result. Overall, 51 (68%) did not recall having received a recommendation to have prostate screening because of their family history, but 41 (55%) had undergone a prostate specific antigen (PSA) test and 32 (43%) a digital rectal examination (DRE) in the previous 3 years. Those who were aware of their mutation result were more likely to have received a recommendation for prostate screening (43 vs. 6%, p = 0.0001), and to have had a PSA test (77 vs. 43%, p = 0.005) and a DRE (69 vs. 29%, p = 0.001) in the previous 3 years. The majority of unaffected males enrolled in kConFab with a BRCA1/2 mutation have not sought out their mutation result. However, of those aware of their positive mutation status, most have undergone at least one round of prostate screening in the previous 3 years.
-
ItemMicrosatellite instability markers for identifying early-onset colorectal cancers caused by germ-line mutations in DNA mismatch repair genes(AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH, 2007-05-15)PURPOSE: Microsatellite instability (MSI) testing of colorectal cancer tumors is used as a screening tool to identify patients most likely to be mismatch repair (MMR) gene mutation carriers. We wanted to examine which microsatellite markers currently used to detect MSI best predict early-onset colorectal cancer caused by germ-line mutations in MMR genes. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Invasive primary tumors from a population-based sample of 107 cases of colorectal cancer diagnosed before age 45 years and tested for germ-line mutations in MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2 and MMR protein expression were screened for MSI using the National Cancer Institute panel and an expanded 10-microsatellite marker panel. RESULTS: The National Cancer Institute five-marker panel system scored 31 (29%) as (NCI)MSI-High, 13 (12%) as (NCI)MSI-Low, and 63 (59%) as (NCI)MS-Stable. The 10-marker panel classified 18 (17%) as (10)MSI-High, 17 (16%) as (10)MSI-Low, and 72 (67%) as (10)MS-Stable. Of the 26 cancers that lacked the expression of at least one MMR gene, 24 (92%) were positive for some level of MSI (using either microsatellite panel). The mononucleotide repeats Bat26, Bat40, and Myb were unstable in all (10)MSI-High cancers and all MLH1 and MSH2 mutation carriers (100% sensitive). Bat40 and Bat25 were unstable in all tumors of MSH6 mutation carriers (100% sensitive). Bat40 was unstable in all MMR gene mutation carriers (100% sensitive). By incorporating seven mononucleotide repeats markers into the 10-marker panel, we were able to distinguish the carriers of MSH6 mutations (all scored (10)MSI-Low) from the MLH1 and MSH2 mutation carriers (all scored (10)MSI-High). CONCLUSIONS: In early-onset colorectal cancer, a microsatellite panel containing a high proportion of mononuclear repeats can distinguish between tumors caused by MLH1 and MSH2 mutations from those caused by MSH6 mutations.