Cited by 94BRCA gene mutations in cancerGenetic factors in colorectal cancerBreast Lesions and Carcinomas

Evaluating the performance of the breast cancer genetic risk models BOADICEA, IBIS, BRCAPRO and Claus for predicting BRCA1/2 mutation carrier probabilities: a study based on 7352 families from the German Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Consortium

Fischer, Christine, Kuchenbäcker, Karoline, Engel, Christoph, Zachariae, Silke, Rhiem, Kerstin, Meindl, Alfons, Rahner, Nils, Dikow, Nicola +16 more·2013·Journal of Medical Genetics

Abstract

Background: Risk prediction models are widely used in clinical genetic counselling. Despite their frequent use, the genetic risk models BOADICEA, BRCAPRO, IBIS and extended Claus model (eCLAUS), used to estimate BRCA1/2 mutation carrier probabilities, have never been comparatively evaluated in a large sample from central Europe. Additionally, a novel version of BOADICEA that incorporates tumour pathology information has not yet been validated. Patients and methods: Using data from 7352 German families we estimated BRCA1/2 carrier probabilities under each model and compared their discrimination and calibration. The incremental value of using pathology information in BOADICEA was assessed in a subsample of 4928 pedigrees with available data on breast tumour molecular markers oestrogen receptor, progesterone receptor and human epidermal growth factor 2. Results: BRCAPRO (area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC)=0.80 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.81)) and BOADICEA (AUC=0.79 (0.78–0.80)), had significantly higher diagnostic accuracy than IBIS and eCLAUS (p<0.001). The AUC increased when pathology information was used in BOADICEA: AUC=0.81 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.83, p<0.001). At carrier thresholds of 10% and 15%, the net reclassification index was +3.9% and +5.4%, respectively, when pathology was included in the model. Overall, calibration was best for BOADICEA and worst for eCLAUS. With eCLAUS, twice as many mutation carriers were predicted than observed. Conclusions: Our results support the use of BRCAPRO and BOADICEA for decision making regarding genetic testing for BRCA1/2 mutations. However, model calibration has to be improved for this population. eCLAUS should not be used for estimating mutation carrier probabilities in clinical settings. Whenever possible, breast tumour molecular marker information should be taken into account.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/jmedgenet-2012-101415

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Tests in the AUC range of 0.75-0.85 have intermediate to good discriminative properties depending on the specific context and shape of the curve.

    “Although a”

    From Hiring as Exploration (2020) · cites this paper as Fischer et al., 2013

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fischer, C., Kuchenbäcker, K., Engel, C., Zachariae, S., Rhiem, K., Meindl, A., Rahner, N., Dikow, N., Plendl, H., Debatin, I., Grimm, T., Gadzicki, D., Flöttmann, R., Horvath, J., Schröck, E., Stock, F., Schäfer, D., Schwaab, I., Kartsonaki, C., Mavaddat, N., Schlegelberger, B., Antoniou, A. C., Schmutzler, R., & on behalf of the German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer
Affiliations
  • Heidelberg University (DE)
  • Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
  • Leipzig University (DE)
  • University Hospital Cologne (DE)
  • TUM Klinikum (DE)
  • Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf (DE)
  • Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel (DE)
  • Universität Ulm (DE)
  • University of Würzburg (DE)
  • Medizinische Hochschule Hannover (DE)
  • Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin (DE)
  • University of Münster (DE)
  • Technische Universität Dresden (DE)
  • Goethe University Frankfurt (DE)
  • Praxis für Humangenetik (DE)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
Corresponding author
Fischer, Christine
Venue
Journal of Medical Genetics
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2013-04-06
Volume
50
Issue
6
Pages
360-367
ISSN
  • 0022-2593 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-6244
OpenAlex
W2096250359
Cited by
94
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 1
FWCI
5.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Genetics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • mediaTUM – the media and publications repository of the Technical University Munich (Technical University Munich) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Cancer Research UK (11174, C12292/A11174)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › BRCA gene mutations in cancer
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Genetic factors in colorectal cancer
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Breast Lesions and Carcinomas
Keywords
breast cancer, BRCA1, BRCA2, BOADICEA, BRCAPRO, IBIS, model calibration, model discrimination, tumour pathology, oestrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, HER2, genetic counseling
MeSH terms
Adult, Breast Neoplasms, Family, Female, Genetic Testing, Germany, Heterozygote, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Mutation, Ovarian Neoplasms, Probability, Models, Statistical, Risk Assessment, BRCA1 Protein, Genes, BRCA1, Genetic Predisposition to Disease, Genes, BRCA2, BRCA2 Protein, White People

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review