PREMM5和PREMMplus风险评估模型识别Lynch综合征的比较

IF 5.3 2区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY JCO precision oncology Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-07 DOI:10.1200/PO-24-00691
Leah H Biller, Kate Mittendorf, Miki Horiguchi, Alyson Caruso, Anu Chittenden, Chinedu Ukaegbu, Hajime Uno, Sapna Syngal, Matthew B Yurgelun
{"title":"PREMM5和PREMMplus风险评估模型识别Lynch综合征的比较","authors":"Leah H Biller, Kate Mittendorf, Miki Horiguchi, Alyson Caruso, Anu Chittenden, Chinedu Ukaegbu, Hajime Uno, Sapna Syngal, Matthew B Yurgelun","doi":"10.1200/PO-24-00691","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Clinical risk assessment models can identify patients with hereditary cancer susceptibility, but it is unknown how multigene cancer syndrome prediction models compare with syndrome-specific models in assessing risk for individual syndromes such as Lynch syndrome (LS). Our aim was to compare PREMMplus (a 19-gene cancer risk prediction model) with PREMM5 (a LS gene-specific model) for LS identification.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analyzed data from two cohorts of patients undergoing germline testing from a commercial laboratory (n = 12,020) and genetics clinic (n = 6,232) with personal and/or family histories of LS-associated cancer. Individual PREMMplus and PREMM5 scores were calculated for all patients. Using a score cutoff of <math><mrow><mo>≥</mo></mrow></math>2.5%, we calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value (NPV) for identifying LS with each model. Overall ability to discriminate LS carriers from noncarriers was measured using receiver operating characteristic (ROC)-AUC.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>PREMMplus had higher sensitivity than PREMM5 in the laboratory- (63.7% [95% CI, 57.0 to 70.0] <i>v</i> 89.2% [95% CI, 84.4 to 93.0]) and clinic-based cohorts (60.8% [95% CI, 52.7 to 68.4] <i>v</i> 90.5% [95% CI, 84.8 to 94.6]). NPV was ≥98.8% for both models in both cohorts. PREMM5 had superior discriminatory capacity to PREMMplus in the laboratory- (ROC-AUC, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.77 to 0.84] <i>v</i> 0.71 [95% CI, 0.67 to 0.75]) and clinic-based cohorts (ROC-AUC, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.75 to 0.84] <i>v</i> 0.68 [95% CI, 0.64 to 0.73]).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both PREMM5 and PREMMplus demonstrated high NPVs (>98%) in LS discrimination across all patient cohorts, and both models may be used to identify individuals at risk of LS. The choice of which model to use can be based on the goals of risk assessment and patient population.</p>","PeriodicalId":14797,"journal":{"name":"JCO precision oncology","volume":"9 ","pages":"e2400691"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11723481/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of PREMM5 and PREMMplus Risk Assessment Models to Identify Lynch Syndrome.\",\"authors\":\"Leah H Biller, Kate Mittendorf, Miki Horiguchi, Alyson Caruso, Anu Chittenden, Chinedu Ukaegbu, Hajime Uno, Sapna Syngal, Matthew B Yurgelun\",\"doi\":\"10.1200/PO-24-00691\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Clinical risk assessment models can identify patients with hereditary cancer susceptibility, but it is unknown how multigene cancer syndrome prediction models compare with syndrome-specific models in assessing risk for individual syndromes such as Lynch syndrome (LS). Our aim was to compare PREMMplus (a 19-gene cancer risk prediction model) with PREMM5 (a LS gene-specific model) for LS identification.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analyzed data from two cohorts of patients undergoing germline testing from a commercial laboratory (n = 12,020) and genetics clinic (n = 6,232) with personal and/or family histories of LS-associated cancer. Individual PREMMplus and PREMM5 scores were calculated for all patients. Using a score cutoff of <math><mrow><mo>≥</mo></mrow></math>2.5%, we calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value (NPV) for identifying LS with each model. Overall ability to discriminate LS carriers from noncarriers was measured using receiver operating characteristic (ROC)-AUC.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>PREMMplus had higher sensitivity than PREMM5 in the laboratory- (63.7% [95% CI, 57.0 to 70.0] <i>v</i> 89.2% [95% CI, 84.4 to 93.0]) and clinic-based cohorts (60.8% [95% CI, 52.7 to 68.4] <i>v</i> 90.5% [95% CI, 84.8 to 94.6]). NPV was ≥98.8% for both models in both cohorts. PREMM5 had superior discriminatory capacity to PREMMplus in the laboratory- (ROC-AUC, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.77 to 0.84] <i>v</i> 0.71 [95% CI, 0.67 to 0.75]) and clinic-based cohorts (ROC-AUC, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.75 to 0.84] <i>v</i> 0.68 [95% CI, 0.64 to 0.73]).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both PREMM5 and PREMMplus demonstrated high NPVs (>98%) in LS discrimination across all patient cohorts, and both models may be used to identify individuals at risk of LS. The choice of which model to use can be based on the goals of risk assessment and patient population.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14797,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JCO precision oncology\",\"volume\":\"9 \",\"pages\":\"e2400691\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11723481/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JCO precision oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1200/PO-24-00691\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/7 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JCO precision oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1200/PO-24-00691","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:临床风险评估模型可以识别遗传癌症易感性患者,但多基因癌症综合征预测模型与综合征特异性模型在评估Lynch综合征(LS)等个别综合征风险方面的比较尚不清楚。我们的目的是比较PREMMplus(一种19基因癌症风险预测模型)和PREMM5(一种LS基因特异性模型)对LS的识别。方法:我们分析了来自商业实验室(n = 12020)和遗传学诊所(n = 6232)进行生殖系检测的两组患者的数据,这些患者具有ls相关癌症的个人和/或家族史。计算所有患者的个体PREMMplus和PREMM5评分。使用≥2.5%的评分截止值,我们计算了每个模型识别LS的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值(NPV)。用受试者工作特征(ROC)-AUC来衡量区分LS携带者和非携带者的总体能力。结果:PREMMplus在实验室组(63.7% [95% CI, 57.0 ~ 70.0] vs 89.2% [95% CI, 84.4 ~ 93.0])和临床组(60.8% [95% CI, 52.7 ~ 68.4] vs 90.5% [95% CI, 84.8 ~ 94.6])的敏感性高于PREMM5。在两个队列中,两种模型的NPV均≥98.8%。PREMM5在实验室(ROC-AUC, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.77至0.84]v 0.71 [95% CI, 0.67至0.75])和临床队列(ROC-AUC, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.75至0.84]v 0.68 [95% CI, 0.64至0.73])中具有优于PREMMplus的鉴别能力。结论:PREMM5和PREMMplus在所有患者队列中均显示出高npv (bb0 98%),这两种模型可用于识别LS风险个体。使用哪种模型的选择可以基于风险评估的目标和患者群体。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparison of PREMM5 and PREMMplus Risk Assessment Models to Identify Lynch Syndrome.

Purpose: Clinical risk assessment models can identify patients with hereditary cancer susceptibility, but it is unknown how multigene cancer syndrome prediction models compare with syndrome-specific models in assessing risk for individual syndromes such as Lynch syndrome (LS). Our aim was to compare PREMMplus (a 19-gene cancer risk prediction model) with PREMM5 (a LS gene-specific model) for LS identification.

Methods: We analyzed data from two cohorts of patients undergoing germline testing from a commercial laboratory (n = 12,020) and genetics clinic (n = 6,232) with personal and/or family histories of LS-associated cancer. Individual PREMMplus and PREMM5 scores were calculated for all patients. Using a score cutoff of 2.5%, we calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value (NPV) for identifying LS with each model. Overall ability to discriminate LS carriers from noncarriers was measured using receiver operating characteristic (ROC)-AUC.

Results: PREMMplus had higher sensitivity than PREMM5 in the laboratory- (63.7% [95% CI, 57.0 to 70.0] v 89.2% [95% CI, 84.4 to 93.0]) and clinic-based cohorts (60.8% [95% CI, 52.7 to 68.4] v 90.5% [95% CI, 84.8 to 94.6]). NPV was ≥98.8% for both models in both cohorts. PREMM5 had superior discriminatory capacity to PREMMplus in the laboratory- (ROC-AUC, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.77 to 0.84] v 0.71 [95% CI, 0.67 to 0.75]) and clinic-based cohorts (ROC-AUC, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.75 to 0.84] v 0.68 [95% CI, 0.64 to 0.73]).

Conclusion: Both PREMM5 and PREMMplus demonstrated high NPVs (>98%) in LS discrimination across all patient cohorts, and both models may be used to identify individuals at risk of LS. The choice of which model to use can be based on the goals of risk assessment and patient population.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
4.30%
发文量
363
期刊最新文献
Improving Individualized Rhabdomyosarcoma Prognosis Predictions Using Somatic Molecular Biomarkers. Phase II Study of Copanlisib in Patients With PTEN Loss: Results From NCI-MATCH ECOG-ACRIN Trial (EAY131) Subprotocols Z1G and Z1H. Precision-Guided Durable Response From Venetoclax With Decitabine in a Patient With a Metastatic Refractory IDH2-Mutant Cholangiocarcinoma. Comparison of PREMM5 and PREMMplus Risk Assessment Models to Identify Lynch Syndrome. Detecting Early Recurrence With Circulating Tumor DNA in Stage I-III Biliary Tract Cancer After Curative Resection.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1