Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24638001›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology2014

Underestimation of risk of a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation in women with high-grade serous ovarian cancer by BRCAPRO: a multi-institution study.

Molly S Daniels, Sheri A Babb, Robin H King, Diana L Urbauer, Brittany A L Batte, Amanda C Brandt, Christopher I Amos, Adam H Buchanan, David G Mutch, Karen H Lu

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2018
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Observational
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Molly S DanielsMolly S. Daniels, Diana L. Urbauer, Brittany A.L. Batte, Amanda C. Brandt, Christopher I. Amos, and Karen H. Lu, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Sheri A. Babb and David G. Mutch, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO; Robin H. King and Adam H. Buchanan, Duke University, Durham, NC.
Sheri A Babb
Robin H King
Diana L Urbauer
Brittany A L Batte
Amanda C Brandt
Christopher I Amos
Adam H Buchanan
David G Mutch
Karen H Lu

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Scott Kopetz · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
Translational Engineering in Cancer (TEC)P30CA023108 · NCI · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI Steven D Leach · 1985 to 2026
$91.3M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672NCI NIH HHS P30 CA023108
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIdentification of the 10% to 15% of patients with ovarian cancer who have germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations is important for management of both patients and relatives. The BRCAPRO model, which estimates mutation likelihood based on personal and family cancer history, can inform genetic testing decisions. This study's purpose was to assess the accuracy of BRCAPRO in women with ovarian cancer.

methodsBRCAPRO scores were calculated for 589 patients with ovarian cancer referred for genetic counseling at three institutions. Observed mutations were compared with those predicted by BRCAPRO. Analysis of variance was used to assess factors impacting BRCAPRO accuracy.

resultsOne hundred eighty (31%) of 589 patients with ovarian cancer tested positive. At BRCAPRO scores less than 40%, more mutations were observed than expected (93 mutations observed v 34.1 mutations expected; P < .001). If patients with BRCAPRO scores less than 10% had not been tested, 51 (28%) of 180 mutations would have been missed. BRCAPRO underestimated the risk for high-grade serous ovarian cancers but overestimated the risk for other histologies (P < .001), underestimation increased as age at diagnosis decreased (P = .02), and model performance varied by institution (P = .02).

conclusionPatients with ovarian cancer classified as low risk by BRCAPRO are more likely to test positive than predicted. The risk of a mutation in patients with low BRCAPRO scores is high enough to warrant genetic testing. This study demonstrates that assessment of family history by a validated model cannot effectively target testing to a high-risk ovarian cancer patient population, which strongly supports the recommendation to offer BRCA1/BRCA2 genetic testing to all patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer regardless of family history.

Indexed as

Genes, BRCA1Genes, BRCA2Germ-Line MutationAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCystadenocarcinoma, SerousFemaleGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenetic TestingHumansMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingOvarian NeoplasmsRetrospective StudiesRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID24638001
PMCPMC4876344

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.