Towards more effective and equitable genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers

Cochrane1 proposed that, because resources are always limited, they should be used to provide equitably those forms of health care that have been shown in properly designed evaluations to be effective. Consistently with this suggestion, Antoniou et al 2 in this issue of JMG (see page 425), examined the performance of several algorithms for predicting the BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation status of women attending UK cancer family clinics over the past decade or so. They concluded, not unreasonably, that the widespread use of these models would “improve equity of access and the cost-effectiveness of genetic testing”. However, they did not describe policy changes that would achieve these gains. Antoniou et al 2 showed that the various genotype-prediction models are reasonably well calibrated, in that out of 100 women with a prediction probability of x %, approximately x will be a mutation carrier, at least for women with a reasonably high chance of being a carrier (e.g. x >15 or 20; see tables 3 and 4 of that paper2). There was little difference between the algorithms in terms of ranking women in order of their probability of being a carrier (i.e. they have similar areas under the ROC curve; see table 6 of that paper …

[1]  R. Eeles,et al.  Predicting the likelihood of carrying a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation: validation of BOADICEA, BRCAPRO, IBIS, Myriad and the Manchester scoring system using data from UK genetics clinics , 2008, Journal of Medical Genetics.

[2]  Julian Peto,et al.  Prediction of BRCA1 Status in Patients with Breast Cancer Using Estrogen Receptor and Basal Phenotype , 2005, Clinical Cancer Research.

[3]  N. Rahman,et al.  A new scoring system for the chances of identifying a BRCA1/2 mutation outperforms existing models including BRCAPRO , 2004, Journal of Medical Genetics.

[4]  D. Berry,et al.  Determining carrier probabilities for breast cancer-susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2. , 1998, American journal of human genetics.

[5]  H A Risch,et al.  The BOADICEA model of genetic susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancers: updates and extensions , 2008, British Journal of Cancer.

[6]  Sean V Tavtigian,et al.  Clinical characteristics of individuals with germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2: analysis of 10,000 individuals. , 2002, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[7]  Julie O. Culver,et al.  Limited family structure and BRCA gene mutation status in single cases of breast cancer. , 2007, JAMA.

[8]  M. J. van de Vijver,et al.  The pathology of familial breast cancer: predictive value of immunohistochemical markers estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, HER-2, and p53 in patients with mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. , 2002, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[9]  G. van Ommen,et al.  Dynamic mutation in Dutch Huntington's disease patients: increased paternal repeat instability extending to within the normal size range. , 1993, Journal of medical genetics.

[10]  B. Mukesh,et al.  Optimal selection of individuals for BRCA mutation testing: a comparison of available methods. , 2006, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[11]  A. L. Cochrane,et al.  Effectiveness and efficiency: random reflections on health services , 1972 .

[12]  D. Easton,et al.  The BOADICEA model of genetic susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancer , 2004, British Journal of Cancer.

[13]  A L Cochrane,et al.  Archie Cochrane in his own words. Selections arranged from his 1972 introduction to "Effectiveness and Efficiency: Random Reflections on the Health Services" 1972. , 1989, Controlled clinical trials.