Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 265

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A new scoring system for the chances of identifying a BRCA1/2 mutation outperforms existing models including BRCAPRO

Open access
Evans, D G R, Eccles, D M, Rahman, N, Young, K, Bulman, M, Amir, E, Shenton, A, Howell, A, Lalloo, F·2004·Journal of Medical Genetics

Abstract

Purpose: To develop a simple scoring system for the likelihood of identifying a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. Methods: DNA samples from affected subjects from 422 non-Jewish families with a history of breast and/or ovarian cancer were screened for BRCA1 mutations and a subset of 318 was screened for BRCA2 by whole gene screening techniques. Using a combination of results from screening and the family history of mutation negative and positive kindreds, a simple scoring system (Manchester scoring system) was devised to predict pathogenic mutations and particularly to discriminate at the 10% likelihood level. A second separate dataset of 192 samples was subsequently used to test the model’s predictive value. This was further validated on a third set of 258 samples and compared against existing models. Results: The scoring system includes a cut-off at 10 points for each gene. This equates to >10% probability of a pathogenic mutation in BRCA1 and BRCA2 individually. The Manchester scoring system had the best trade-off between sensitivity and specificity at 10% prediction for the presence of mutations as shown by its highest C-statistic and was far superior to BRCAPRO. Conclusion: The scoring system is useful in identifying mutations particularly in BRCA2. The algorithm may need modifying to include pathological data when calculating whether to screen for BRCA1 mutations. It is considerably less time-consuming for clinicians than using computer models and if implemented routinely in clinical practice will aid in selecting families most suitable for DNA sampling for diagnostic testing.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/jmg.2003.017996

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 36

  1. 10.1086/301749 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1086/301614 · DOI
  3. 1997, Am J Hum Genet, 60, 1013
  4. 1996, Cancer Res, 56, 3663
  5. 2000, Am J Hum Genet, 77, 207
  6. 10.1136/jmg.37.12.e42 · doi:10.1136/jmg.37.12.e42
  7. 10.1086/301670 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1056/NEJM199705153362002 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.1001/jama.1997.03550150046034 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 1998, J Clin Oncol, 16, 2417, 10.1200/JCO.1998.16.7.2417 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1200/JCO.20.6.1480 · doi:10.1200/jco.20.6.1480 · Paper page
  12. 10.1002/cncr.10223 · DOI
  13. 10.1200/JCO.2002.05.121 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1093/jnci/94.11.844 · DOI
  15. 10.1200/JCO.2003.07.007 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 10.1136/jmg.40.7.503 · doi:10.1136/jmg.40.7.503
  17. Peelen T. Genetics of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in the Netherlands. Leiden, The Netherlands: PhD thesis, Leiden University, 2001:115–28.
  18. 10.1054/bjoc.2000.1626 · doi:10.1054/bjoc.2000.1626
  19. 10.1002/ijc.10527 · doi:10.1002/ijc.10527
  20. 10.1136/jmg.37.10.792 · DOI
  21. 2002, Familial Cancer, 3, 131
  22. 1998, Br J Cancer, 77, 2199, 10.1038/bjc.1998.366 · DOI
  23. 10.1073/pnas.90.21.10325 · DOI · Paper page
  24. 10.1200/JCO.2002.09.023 · DOI · Paper page
  25. 10.1136/jmg.35.1.10 · DOI
  26. 10.1056/NEJM199705153362003 · DOI · Paper page
  27. 10.1093/jnci/91.11.943 · DOI · Paper page
  28. 10.1093/jnci/93.16.1215 · DOI · Paper page
  29. 10.1056/NEJM199601183340301 · DOI · Paper page
  30. 2001, Breast Cancer Res, 4, 1, 10.1186/bcr410 · DOI
  31. 10.1136/jmg.40.9.e107 · DOI
  32. 1996, J Clin Oncol, 14, 1730, 10.1200/JCO.1996.14.5.1730 · DOI · Paper page
  33. 10.1016/S0046-8177(00)80014-3 · DOI
  34. 10.1093/jnci/91.15.1310 · DOI · Paper page
  35. 10.1034/j.1399-0004.2000.580408.x · DOI
  36. 10.1038/sj.bjc.6600008 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 265

Metadata

Authors
Evans, D. G. R., Eccles, D. M., Rahman, N., Young, K., Bulman, M., Amir, E., Shenton, A., Howell, A., & Lalloo, F.
Venue
Journal of Medical Genetics
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2004-06
Volume
41
Issue
6
Pages
474-480
ISSN
  • 0022-2593 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-6244
OpenAlex
W2126170418
Cited by
265
References
1
FWCI
6.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A new scoring system for the chances of identifying a BRCA1/2 mutation outperforms existing models including BRCAPRO. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/jmg.2003.017996
The paper
Evans, D. G. R., Eccles, D. M., Rahman, N., Young, K., Bulman, M., Amir, E., Shenton, A., Howell, A., & Lalloo, F. (2004). A new scoring system for the chances of identifying a BRCA1/2 mutation outperforms existing models including BRCAPRO. Journal of Medical Genetics. https://doi.org/10.1136/jmg.2003.017996

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.