D G R Evans

Malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumours in neurofibromatosis 1

Background: Cross sectional studies have shown that 1-2% of patients with neurofibromatosis 1 (NF1) develop malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumours (MPNST). However, no population based longitudinal studies have assessed lifetime risk. Methods: NF1 patients with MPNST were ascertained from two sources for our north west England population of 4.1 million in the 13 year period 1984-1996: the North West Regional NF1 Register and review of notes of patients with MPNST in the North West Regional Cancer Registry. Results: Twenty-one NF1 patients developed MPNST, equivalent to an annual incidence of 1.6 per 1000 and a lifetime risk of 8-13%. There were 37 patients with sporadic MPNST. The median age at diagnosis of MPNST in NF1 patients was 26 years, compared to 62 years in patients with sporadic MPNST (p<0.001). In Kaplan-Meier analyses, the five year survival from diagnosis was 21% for NF1 patients with MPNST, compared to 42% for sporadic cases of MPNST (p=0.09). One NF1 patient developed two separate MPNST in the radiation field of a previous optic glioma. Conclusion: The lifetime risk of MPNST in NF1 is much higher than previously estimated and warrants careful surveillance and a low threshold for investigation.

A genetic study of type 2 neurofibromatosis in the United Kingdom. I. Prevalence, mutation rate, fitness, and confirmation of maternal transmission effect on severity.

A clinical and genetic study of type 2 neurofibromatosis (NF2) has been carried out in the United Kingdom. Virtually complete ascertainment of cases in the north-west of England was achieved and suggests a population incidence of 1 in 33,000 to 40,000. In the UK as a whole, 150 cases have been identified and been used to study the clinical and genetic features of NF2. The autosomal dominant inheritance of NF2 was confirmed, 49% of cases were assessed as representing new mutations, and the mutation rate was estimated to be 6.5 x 10(-6). Evidence to support a maternal gene effect was found in that age at onset was 18.17 years in 36 maternally inherited cases and 24.5 in 20 paternally inherited cases (p = 0.027). The preponderance of maternally inherited cases was also significant (p = 0.03). Data are presented which suggest that there are two types of NF2, one with later onset and bilateral vestibular schwannomas as the only usual feature, and the other with earlier onset and multiple other tumours. A considerable number of cases did not fall easily into one or other group and other factors such as maternal effect on severity and anticipation need to be considered.

Birth incidence and prevalence of tumor-prone syndromes: estimates from a UK family genetic register service.

Autosomal dominantly inherited tumor‐prone syndromes are a substantial health problem and are amenable to epidemiologic studies by combining cancer surveillance registries with a genetic register (GR)‐based approach. Knowledge of the frequency of the conditions provides a basis for appropriate health‐resources allocations. GRs for five tumor‐prone syndromes were established in the Manchester region of North West England in 1989 and 1990. Mapping birth dates of affected individuals from families onto regional birth rates has allowed an estimate of birth incidence, disease prevalence, and de novo mutation rates. Disease prevalence in order of frequency were for neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1): 1 in 4,560; familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP): 1 in 18,976; nevoid basal cell carcinoma [Gorlin syndrome (GS)]: 1 in 30,827; neurofibromatosis type 2 (NF2) 1 in 56,161; and von Hippel Lindau (VHL) 1 in 91,111. Best estimates for birth incidence were: 1 in 2,699; 1 in 8,619; 1 in 14,963, 1 in 33,000; and 1 in 42,987, respectively. The proportions due to de novo mutation were: 42% (NF1); 16% (FAP); 26% (GS); 56% (NF2); and 21% (VHL). Estimates for NF1, NF2, FAP, and VHL are in line with previous estimates, and we provide the first estimates of birth incidence and de novo mutation rate for GS.

The BOADICEA model of genetic susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancers: updates and extensions

Multiple genetic loci confer susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancers. We have previously developed a model (BOADICEA) under which susceptibility to breast cancer is explained by mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2, as well as by the joint multiplicative effects of many genes (polygenic component). We have now updated BOADICEA using additional family data from two UK population-based studies of breast cancer and family data from BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers identified by 22 population-based studies of breast or ovarian cancer. The combined data set includes 2785 families (301 BRCA1 positive and 236 BRCA2 positive). Incidences were smoothed using locally weighted regression techniques to avoid large variations between adjacent intervals. A birth cohort effect on the cancer risks was implemented, whereby each individual was assumed to develop cancer according to calendar period-specific incidences. The fitted model predicts that the average breast cancer risks in carriers increase in more recent birth cohorts. For example, the average cumulative breast cancer risk to age 70 years among BRCA1 carriers is 50% for women born in 1920–1929 and 58% among women born after 1950. The model was further extended to take into account the risks of male breast, prostate and pancreatic cancer, and to allow for the risk of multiple cancers. BOADICEA can be used to predict carrier probabilities and cancer risks to individuals with any family history, and has been implemented in a user-friendly Web-based program (http://www.srl.cam.ac.uk/genepi/boadicea/boadicea_home.html).

Evaluation of breast cancer risk assessment packages in the family history evaluation and screening programme

Introduction: Accurate individualised breast cancer risk assessment is essential to provide risk–benefit analysis prior to initiating interventions designed to lower breast cancer risk. Several mathematical models for the estimation of individual breast cancer risk have been proposed. However, no single model integrates family history, hormonal factors, and benign breast disease in a comprehensive fashion. A new model by Tyrer and Cuzick has addressed these deficiencies. Therefore, this study has assessed the goodness of fit and discriminatory value of the Tyrer–Cuzick model against established models namely Gail, Claus, and Ford. Methods: The goodness of fit and discriminatory accuracy of the models was assessed using data from 1933 women attending the Family History Evaluation and Screening Programme, of whom 52 developed cancer. All models were applied to these women over a mean follow up of 5.27 years to estimate risk of breast cancer. Results: The ratios (95% confidence intervals) of expected to observed numbers of breast cancers were 0.48 (0.37 to 0.64) for Gail, 0.56 (0.43 to 0.75) for Claus, 0.49 (0.37 to 0.65) for Ford, and 0.81 (0.62 to 1.08) for Tyrer–Cuzick. The accuracy of the models for individual cases was evaluated using ROC curves. These showed that the area under the curve was 0.735 for Gail, 0.716 for Claus, 0.737 for Ford, and 0.762 for Tyrer–Cuzick. Conclusion: The Tyrer–Cuzick model is the most consistently accurate model for prediction of breast cancer. The Gail, Claus, and Ford models all significantly underestimate risk, although the accuracy of the Claus model may be improved by adjustments for other risk factors.

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

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.

The impact of genetic counselling on risk perception in women with a family history of breast cancer

Women with a family history of breast cancer generally self-refer because they have a feeling that their risk is high. However, they have, in general, only a hazy notion of the population risk of breast cancer and their own risk in relation to this. It is probable that they are helped by genetic counselling and, if at substantial risk, by annual mammography. However, the psychological impact of assigning true risk and the value of mammography need to be evaluated. We have assessed risk perception by questionnaire in 517 new referrals to a family history clinic and 200 women returning to the clinic at least 1 year after counselling. Correct assignment of population lifetime risk of breast cancer was 16% in the uninformed precounsel group and 33% in the post-counsel group, likewise personal risk was correct in 11% and 41% respectively. Post-counsel women were significantly more likely to retain information if they were sent a post-clinic letter or if they assessed their personal risk as too high initially.

Evaluation of clinical diagnostic criteria for neurofibromatosis 2

Background: Four sets of clinical diagnostic criteria for neurofibromatosis 2 (NF2) have been developed by groups of expert clinicians, but sensitivity has never been formally assessed. The sets of criteria differ for people without bilateral vestibular schwannomas, which are pathognomonic for NF2. Objective: To empirically evaluate the four existing sets of clinical diagnostic criteria for NF2. Methods: The study was based on 163 of 403 people in the United Kingdom NF2 registry (41%) who presented without bilateral vestibular schwannomas. The authors applied the sets of criteria to each person at initial assessment and at the most recent clinical evaluation (mean ± SE length of follow-up, 13 ± 1 years). Results: In people with “definite NF2” and a negative family history of NF2, the 1987 US NIH and 1991 NIH criteria each identify 78% of people at the most recent clinical evaluation but 0% at initial assessment. The National Neurofibromatosis Foundation (NNFF) criteria and the Manchester criteria each identify higher proportions at both time points (NNFF criteria, 91% and 10%; Manchester criteria, 93% and 14%), but the proportions at initial assessment are still low. Conclusions: None of the existing sets of criteria are adequate at initial assessment for diagnosing people who present without bilateral vestibular schwannomas as having NF2, particularly people with a negative family history of NF2. The authors recommend that a single, revised set of diagnostic criteria be devised to replace all of the existing sets of criteria.

Genotype/phenotype correlations in type 2 neurofibromatosis (NF2): evidence for more severe disease associated with truncating mutations.

Blood samples from 125 unrelated families with classical type 2 neurofibromatosis (NF2) with bilateral vestibular schwannomas have been analysed for mutations in the NF2 gene. A further 17 families fulfilling modified criteria for NF2 have also been analysed. Causative mutations have been identified in 54 (43%) classical families and six (35%) of those fulfilling modified criteria. Forty-two cases from 38 families with truncating mutations had an average age at onset of symptoms of 19 years and diagnosis at 22.4 years. Fifty-one cases from 16 families with splice site mutations (15 from six), missense mutations (18 from six), and large deletions (18 from five) had an average age of onset of 27.8 years and at diagnosis of 33.4 years. Subjects with truncating mutations were significantly more likely to have symptoms before 20 years of age (p<0.001) and to develop at least two symptomatic CNS tumours in addition to vestibular schwannoma before 30 years (p<0.001). There were also significantly fewer multigenerational families with truncating mutations. Four further truncating mutations were in mosaic form and were associated with milder disease than other similar mutations. This large study has confirmed the previous impression that truncating mutations are associated with severe disease, but caution has to be exercised in using mutation type to predict disease course.

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.

Objectives: Genetic testing for the breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 has important implications for the clinical management of people found to carry a mutation. However, genetic testing is expensive and may be associated with adverse psychosocial effects. To provide a cost-efficient and clinically appropriate genetic counselling service, genetic testing should be targeted at those individuals most likely to carry pathogenic mutations. Several algorithms that predict the likelihood of carrying a BRCA1 or a BRCA2 mutation are currently used in clinical practice to identify such individuals. Design: We evaluated the performance of the carrier prediction algorithms BOADICEA, BRCAPRO, IBIS, the Manchester scoring system and Myriad tables, using 1934 families seen in cancer genetics clinics in the UK in whom an index patient had been screened for BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutations. The models were evaluated for calibration, discrimination and accuracy of the predictions. Results: Of the five algorithms, only BOADICEA predicted the overall observed number of mutations detected accurately (ie, was well calibrated). BOADICEA also provided the best discrimination, being significantly better (p<0.05) than all models except BRCAPRO (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve statistics: BOADICEA = 0.77, BRCAPRO = 0.76, IBIS = 0.74, Manchester = 0.75, Myriad = 0.72). All models underpredicted the number of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in the low estimated risk category. Conclusions: Carrier prediction algorithms provide a rational basis for counselling individuals likely to carry BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. Their widespread use would improve equity of access and the cost-effectiveness of genetic testing.