The predictive value of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation testing

Simulation modeling for stratified breast cancer screening - a systematic review of cost and quality of life assumptions

BACKGROUND

The economic evaluation of stratified breast cancer screening gains momentum, but produces also very diverse results. Systematic reviews so far focused on modeling techniques and epidemiologic assumptions. However, cost and utility parameters received only little attention. This systematic review assesses simulation models for stratified breast cancer screening based on their cost and utility parameters in each phase of breast cancer screening and care.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted to compare economic evaluations with simulation models of personalized breast cancer screening. Study quality was assessed using reporting guidelines. Cost and utility inputs were extracted, standardized and structured using a care delivery framework. Studies were then clustered according to their study aim and parameters were compared within the clusters.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies were identified within three study clusters. Reporting quality was very diverse in all three clusters. Only two studies in cluster 1, four studies in cluster 2 and one study in cluster 3 scored high in the quality appraisal. In addition to the quality appraisal, this review assessed if the simulation models were consistent in integrating all relevant phases of care, if utility parameters were consistent and methodological sound and if cost were compatible and consistent in the actual parameters used for screening, diagnostic work up and treatment. Of 18 studies, only three studies did not show signs of potential bias.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review shows that a closer look into the cost and utility parameter can help to identify potential bias. Future simulation models should focus on integrating all relevant phases of care, using methodologically sound utility parameters and avoiding inconsistent cost parameters.

Closing the gap between knowledge and clinical application: challenges for genomic translation

Despite early predictions and rapid progress in research, the introduction of personal genomics into clinical practice has been slow. Several factors contribute to this translational gap between knowledge and clinical application. The evidence available to support genetic test use is often limited, and implementation of new testing programs can be challenging. In addition, the heterogeneity of genomic risk information points to the need for strategies to select and deliver the information most appropriate for particular clinical needs. Accomplishing these tasks also requires recognition that some expectations for personal genomics are unrealistic, notably expectations concerning the clinical utility of genomic risk assessment for common complex diseases. Efforts are needed to improve the body of evidence addressing clinical outcomes for genomics, apply implementation science to personal genomics, and develop realistic goals for genomic risk assessment. In addition, translational research should emphasize the broader benefits of genomic knowledge, including applications of genomic research that provide clinical benefit outside the context of personal genomic risk.

Validation of the BRCA1 antibody MS110 and the utility of BRCA1 as a patient selection biomarker in immunohistochemical analysis of breast and ovarian tumours

BRCA1 protein measurement has previously been evaluated as a potential diagnostic marker without reaching a conclusive recommendation. In this study, we applied current best practice in antibody validation to further characterize MS110, a widely used antibody targeting BRCA1. Antibody specificity was investigated using different biochemical validation techniques. We found that BRCA1 could not be reliably detected using immunoprecipitation and Western blot in endogenously expressing cells. We used immunohistochemistry on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded cell pellets to establish compatibility with formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded samples. We demonstrated that in transfected cells and cell lines with known genetic BRCA1 status, MS110 successfully detected BRCA1 giving the expected level of staining in immunohistochemistry. Following this, we investigated the use of BRCA1 protein measurement by immunohistochemistry in a cohort of triple negative breast and serous ovarian tumour samples to explore the use of BRCA1 protein measurement by immunohistochemistry for patient stratification. Using MS110 in repeated standardized experiments, on serial sections from a panel of patient samples, results demonstrated considerable run-to-run variability. We concluded that in formalin-fixed tissue samples, MS110 does detect BRCA1; however, using standard methodologies, BRCA1 expression levels in tissue samples is incompatible with the use of this protein as a statistically robust patient selection marker in immunohistochemistry. These results demonstrate the need for further development to deliver BRCA1 protein quantification by immunohistochemistry as a patient stratification marker.

Prevalence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in women with breast carcinoma In Situ and referred for genetic testing

Ductal and lobular carcinoma in situ (CIS) accounted for 62,280 (24.5%) of all new breast cancer diagnoses in 2009. BRCA1/2 mutations confer an extremely high risk of breast cancer, and management guidelines for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers advise close follow-up, intensive screening, and consideration of prophylactic surgery to lower this risk. The limited relevant previous data are not definitive in establishing the prevalence of BRCA1/2 mutations in breast CIS patients, creating uncertainty as to whether referral for cancer risk assessment and genetic testing is appropriate for this group. Therefore, we conducted a cross-sectional analysis of the Myriad Genetics BRCA1/2 database to determine the prevalence of these mutations in breast CIS patients. All statistical tests were 2-sided, and confidence intervals (CI) are reported at the 95% level (α = 0.05). The source population was 64,717 consecutive women who were not Ashkenazi Jewish, underwent BRCA1/2 testing, and provided a personal and family history of invasive breast and ovarian cancer; 7,295 (11.3%) reported a diagnosis of CIS (ductal or lobular) and had an overall 5.9% prevalence of mutated BRCA1/2 (mBRCA). Subgrouped by history (personal or family) of invasive breast and/or ovarian cancer, these CIS patients had the following prevalences of mBRCA: (1) no personal or family history, 2.3%; (2) personal history, 5.2%; (3) family history, 5%; and (4) personal and family history, 10.3%. mBRCA risk was significantly higher in women with early-onset (<50 years old) CIS than with late-onset (≥ 50 years old) CIS [odds ratio (OR) = 1.5; 95% CI = 1.1-2.1). Disease onset at less than 40 years age was associated with an even higher mBRCA risk (OR = 1.8; 95% CI = 1.3-2.3). By far the largest analysis of BRCA1/2 mutation prevalence in non-Ashkenazi Jewish breast CIS patients, this study shows that early-onset CIS is associated with mBRCA1/2 in patients referred for genetic testing. When a family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer are also present, testing women with early-onset CIS may increase both the likelihood of detecting BRCA1/2 mutations and opportunities for carriers to consider additional cancer prevention strategies.

Risk and protection in prodromal schizophrenia: ethical implications for clinical practice and future research

Over the last decade schizophrenia researchers have turned their attention to earlier identification in the prodromal period of illness. A greater understanding of both risk and protective factors can lead to improved prevention and treatment strategies in this vulnerable population. This research, however, has far-reaching ethical implications. One year follow-up data from 50 individuals who met established criteria for a prodromal state is used to illustrate ethical issues that directly affect clinicians and future research strategies. At 1-year follow-up, the psychotic transition rate was 13%, but it increased in subsequent years with smaller sample sizes. One-half developed an affective psychosis. The converted sample was older (p > 0.05) than the nonconverted sample and more likely to have a premorbid history of substance abuse, as well as higher clinical ratings on "subsyndromal" psychotic items (delusional thinking, suspiciousness, and thought disorder). Despite a lack of conversion, the nonconverted sample remained symptomatic and had a high rate of affective and anxiety disorders with evidence of functional disability. This conversion rate is relatively low compared to similar studies at 1 year. Specific risk factors were identified, but these findings need to be replicated in a larger cohort. By examining the rate of conversion and nonconversion in this sample as an example, we hope to contribute to the discussion of implications for clinical practice and the direction of future research in the schizophrenia prodrome. Finally, our data strengthen the evidence base available to inform the discussion of ethical issues relevant to this important research area.

Hereditary risk of women's cancers

The characterization of specific genes responsible for the hereditary risk of common cancers has enabled the development of clinical tests designed to identify at-risk individuals and to significantly improve the clinical outcome of such individuals. Two of the most important syndromes associated with a hereditary risk of cancer in women are hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, resulting from the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, and hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer, caused primarily by the MLH1 and MSH2 genes. As testing for the hereditary risk of breast, ovarian, endometrial and colorectal cancer enters the clinical mainstream, physicians responsible for the health care of women are increasingly required to assess and provide guidance to healthy patients with a strong family history, cancer survivors who may be at risk of a second cancer and women who discover that a family member carries a specific mutation identified through genetic testing. Obstetricians and gynaecologists must therefore become familiar with the principles of assessing the family history for specific hereditary cancer syndromes, with the appropriate use of tests to confirm such syndromes and with the management options for women who have inherited a greatly increased risk of cancer.