Article Text

PDF
Mutation prediction models in Lynch syndrome: evaluation in a clinical genetic setting
  1. D Ramsoekh1,2,
  2. M E van Leerdam1,
  3. A Wagner3,
  4. E J Kuipers1,4,
  5. E W Steyerberg2
  1. 1
    Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  2. 2
    Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  3. 3
    Department of Clinical Genetics, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  4. 4
    Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  1. Correspondence to Dr D Ramsoekh, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology & Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, ‘s Gravendijkwal 230, 3015 CE Rotterdam, The Netherlands; d.ramsoekh{at}erasmusmc.nl

Abstract

Background/aims: The identification of Lynch syndrome is hampered by the absence of specific diagnostic features and underutilisation of genetic testing. Prediction models have therefore been developed, but they have not been validated for a clinical genetic setting. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the usefulness of currently available prediction models.

Methods: The authors collected data of 321 index probands who were referred to the department of clinical genetics of the Erasmus Medical Center because of a family history of colorectal cancer. These data were used as input for five previously published models. External validity was assessed by discriminative ability (AUC: area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) and calibration. For further insight, predicted probabilities were categorised with cut-offs of 5%, 10%, 20% and 40%. Furthermore, costs of different testing strategies were related to the number of extra detected mutation carriers.

Results: Of the 321 index probands, 66 harboured a germline mutation. All models discriminated well between high risk and low risk index probands (AUC 0.82–0.84). Calibration was well for the Premm1,2 and Edinburgh model, but poor for the other models. Cut-offs could be found for the prediction models where costs could be saved while missing only few mutations.

Conclusions: The Edinburgh and Premm1,2 model were the models with the best performance for an intermediate to high risk setting. These models may well be of use in clinical practice to select patients for further testing of mismatch repair gene mutations.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Competing interests None.

  • Patient consent Not required.

  • Provenance and Peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.