Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27928164›Full record

ArticleJournal of human genetics2017

Comparison between CaGene 5.1 and 6.0 for BRCA1/2 mutation prediction: a retrospective study of 150 BRCA1/2 genetic tests in 517 families with breast/ovarian cancer.

Ivana Antonucci, Martina Provenzano, Luca Sorino, Michela Balsamo, Gitana Maria Aceto, Pasquale Battista, David Euhus, Ettore Cianchetti, Patrizia Ballerini, Clara Natoli and 2 more

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of human genetics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 88% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Potential advantage of clinical exome sequencing inJournal of medical genetics · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Ivana AntonucciLaboratory of Molecular Genetics, Department of Psychological, Health and Territorial Sciences (DISPUTer), School of Medicine and Health Sciences, 'G. d'Annunzio' University, Chieti-Pescara, Italy.
Martina ProvenzanoLaboratory of Molecular Genetics, Department of Psychological, Health and Territorial Sciences (DISPUTer), School of Medicine and Health Sciences, 'G. d'Annunzio' University, Chieti-Pescara, Italy.
Luca SorinoLaboratory of Molecular Genetics, Department of Psychological, Health and Territorial Sciences (DISPUTer), School of Medicine and Health Sciences, 'G. d'Annunzio' University, Chieti-Pescara, Italy.
Michela BalsamoPsychometric Laboratory, DISPUTer, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, 'G. d'Annunzio' University, Chieti-Pescara, Italy.
Gitana Maria AcetoDepartment of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological Sciences, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, 'G. d'Annunzio' University, Chieti, Italy.
Pasquale BattistaDepartment of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological Sciences, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, 'G. d'Annunzio' University, Chieti, Italy.
David EuhusJohns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Ettore CianchettiDepartment of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological Sciences, School of Medicine and Health Sciences 'G. d'Annunzio' University, Chieti-Pescara, Italy.
Patrizia BalleriniLaboratory of Pharmacology, DISPUTer, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, G. d'Annunzio University Chieti-Pescara, Italy.
Clara NatoliDepartment of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological Sciences, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, 'G. d'Annunzio' University, Chieti, Italy.
Giandomenico PalkaDepartment of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological Sciences, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, 'G. d'Annunzio' University, Chieti, Italy.
Liborio StuppiaLaboratory of Molecular Genetics, Department of Psychological, Health and Territorial Sciences (DISPUTer), School of Medicine and Health Sciences, 'G. d'Annunzio' University, Chieti-Pescara, Italy.
University of Chieti-Pescara · ITJohns Hopkins Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

During the past years, several empirical and statistical models have been developed to discriminate between carriers and non-carriers of germline BRCA1/BRCA2 (breast cancer 1, early onset/breast cancer 2, early onset) mutations in families with hereditary breast or ovarian cancer. Among these, the BRCAPRO or CaGene model is commonly used during genetic counseling, and plays a central role in the identification of potential carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations. We compared performance and clinical applicability of BRCAPRO version 5.1 vs version 6.0 in order to assess diagnostic accuracy of updated version. The study was carried out on 517 pedigrees of patients with familial history of breast or ovarian cancer, 150 of which were submitted to BRCA1/2 mutation screening, according to BRCAPRO evaluation or to criteria based on familial history. In our study, CaGene 5.1 was more sensitive than CaGene 6.0, although the latter showed a higher specificity. Both BRCAPRO versions better discriminate BRCA1 than BRCA2 mutations. This study evidenced similar performances in the two BRCAPRO versions even if the CaGene 6.0 has underestimated the genetic risk prediction in some BRCA mutation-positive families. Genetic counselors should recognize this limitation and during genetic counseling would be advisable to use a set of criteria in order to improve mutation carrier prediction.

Indexed as

Models, GeneticMutationAdultBRCA1 ProteinBRCA2 ProteinBreast NeoplasmsFemaleGene ExpressionGenetic CounselingGenetic Diseases, InbornGenetic TestingHeterozygoteHumansMiddle AgedOvarian NeoplasmsPedigreeBRCA1 ProteinBRCA1 protein, humanBRCA2 ProteinBRCA2 protein, human

Identifiers

PMID27928164
OpenAlexW2560770409

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.