Person:

Hughes, Kevin

Purpose: Health care providers need simple tools to identify patients at genetic risk of breast and ovarian cancers. Genetic risk prediction models such as BRCAPRO could fill this gap if incorporated into Electronic Medical Records or other Health Information Technology solutions. However, BRCAPRO requires potentially extensive information on the counselee and her family history. Thus, it may be useful to provide simplified version(s) of BRCAPRO for use in settings that do not require exhaustive genetic counseling. Methods: We explore four simplified versions of BRCAPRO, each using less complete information than the original model. BRCAPROLYTE uses information on affected relatives only up to second degree. It is in clinical use but has not been evaluated. BRCAPROLYTE-Plus extends BRCAPROLYTE by imputing the ages of unaffected relatives. BRCAPROLYTE-Simple reduces the data collection burden associated with BRCAPROLYTE and BRCAPROLYTE-Plus by not collecting the family structure. BRCAPRO-1Degree only uses first-degree affected relatives. We use data on 2713 individuals from seven sites of the Cancer Genetics Network and MD Anderson Cancer Center to compare these simplified tools with the Family History Assessment Tool (FHAT) and BRCAPRO, with the latter serving as the benchmark. Results: BRCAPROLYTE retains high discrimination, however, because it ignores information on unaffected relatives, it overestimates carrier probabilities. BRCAPROLYTE-Plus and BRCAPROLYTE-Simple provide better calibration than BRCAPROLYTE, so they have higher specificity for similar values of sensitivity. BRCAPROLYTE-Plus performs slightly better than BRCAPROLYTE-Simple. The Areas Under the ROC curve are 0.783 (BRCAPRO), 0.763 (BRCAPROLYTE), 0.772 (BRCAPROLYTE-Plus), 0.773 (BRCAPROLYTE-Simple), 0.728 (BRCAPRO-1Degree), and 0.745 (FHAT). The simpler versions, especially BRCAPROLYTE-Plus and BRCAPROLYTE-Simple, lead to only modest loss in overall discrimination compared to BRCAPRO in this dataset. Conclusion: Simplified implementations of BRCAPRO can be used for genetic risk prediction in settings where collection of complete pedigree information is impractical.

Background: Cancer risk prediction tools provide valuable information to clinicians but remain computationally challenging. Many clinics find that Ca Gene or Hughes Risk Apps fit their needs for easy- and ready-to-use software to obtain cancer risks; however, these resources may not fit all clinics’ needs. The Hughes Risk Apps Group and Bayes Mendel Lab therefore developed a web service, called “Risk Service", which may be integrated into any client software to quickly obtain standardized and up-to-date risk predictions for Bayes Mendel tools (BRCAPRO, MMRpro, PancPRO, and MelaPRO), the Tyrer-Cuzick IBIS Breast Cancer Risk Evaluation Tool, and the Colorectal Cancer Risk Assessment Tool. Findings: Software clients that can convert their local structured data into the HL7 XML-formatted family and clinical patient history (Pedigree model) may integrate with the Risk Service. The Risk Service uses Apache Tomcat and Apache Axis2 technologies to provide an all Java web service. The software client sends HL7 XML information containing anonymized family and clinical history to a Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI) server where it is parsed, interpreted, and processed by multiple risk tools. The Risk Service then formats the results into an HL7 style message and returns the risk predictions to the originating software client. Upon consent, users may allow DFCI to maintain the data for future research. The Risk Service implementation is exemplified through Hughes Risk Apps. Conclusions: The Risk Service broadens the availability of valuable, up-to-date cancer risk tools and allows clinics and researchers to integrate risk prediction tools into their own software interface designed for their needs. Each software package can collect risk data using its own interface, and display the results using its own interface, while using a central, up-to-date risk calculator. This allows users to choose from multiple interfaces while always getting the latest risk calculations. Consenting users contribute their data for future research, thus building a rich multi-center resource.

Genetic risk prediction models such as BRCAPRO are used routinely in genetic counseling for identification of potential BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. They require extensive information on the counselee and her family history, and thus are not practical for primary care. To address this gap, we develop and test a two-stage approach to genetic risk assessment by balancing the tradeoff between the amount of information used and accuracy achieved. The first stage is intended for primary care wherein limited information is collected and analyzed using a simplified version of BRCAPRO. If the assessed risk is sufficiently high, more extensive information is collected and the full BRCAPRO is used (stage two: intended for genetic counseling). We consider three first-stage tools: BRCAPROLYTE, BRCAPROLYTE-Plus, and BRCAPROLYTE-Simple. We evaluate the two-stage approach on independent clinical data on probands with family history of breast and ovarian cancers, and BRCA genetic test results. These include population-based data on 1344 probands from Newton-Wellesley Hospital and mostly high-risk family data on 2713 probands from Cancer Genetics Network and MD Anderson Cancer Center. We use discrimination and calibration measures, appropriately modified to evaluate the overall performance of a two-stage approach. We find that the proposed two-stage approach has very limited loss of discrimination and comparable calibration as BRCAPRO. It identifies a similar number of carriers without requiring a full family history evaluation on all probands. We conclude that the two-stage approach allows for practical large-scale genetic risk assessment in primary care.