PO.PR01.03 · 预防研究
评估亚洲卵巢癌女性中靶向BRCA检测与普遍BRCA检测的比较
Evaluating targeted versus universal BRCA testing in Asian women with ovarian cancer
作者与单位 Authors & Affiliations
摘要 Abstract
中文摘要
背景:推荐对所有卵巢癌患者进行BRCA1和BRCA2致病性变异(PV)的胚系遗传学检测,因为识别PV可为治疗规划提供信息并促进家族级联检测。然而,在资源有限的环境中,高昂的检测成本往往限制了可行性和采纳率。一种替代方法是使用预测模型对携带PV可能性较高的患者进行优先排序,从而优化资源配置。现有模型大多源自西方,在亚洲人群中表现欠佳;虽然我们已有一个针对乳腺癌的经验证模型,但目前尚无针对卵巢癌的同类模型。
方法:利用一项纳入1,126名亚洲卵巢癌患者(包括147名BRCA PV携带者)的多中心研究数据,我们开发了预测模型,纳入常规收集的信息(如癌症病史和临床病理特征)以估计携带BRCA PV的可能性。我们从区分能力、校准度、总体准确性、灵敏度和特异度方面评估模型性能,并将相关的遗传学检测量和成本与普遍检测进行比较。
结果:我们的最终模型展现出良好的校准度和强大的区分能力,曲线下面积为0.80(95%置信区间:0.74-0.87)。纳入模型的因素包括诊断时年龄、种族、个人和家族癌症病史以及临床病理特征。在最优阈值下,该模型达到77%的准确性(73%的灵敏度和73%的特异度),而普遍检测的准确性为13%(100%的灵敏度但0%的特异度)。在实践中,这意味着每检测三名患者可识别出一名携带者,而普遍检测下为每八名识别出一名,将每识别一名携带者的遗传学检测成本从4,000美元降至2,000美元。从预算角度看,即使需要检出每一名携带者(如在普遍检测中),该模型也能将检测量减少15%,对于每年筛查的每800名患者可带来70,000美元的潜在节省。
结论:当普遍检测不可行时,使用突变预测模型的靶向检测提供了一种更高效的替代方案,其可调节的风险阈值可根据当地资源进行定制,以在资源有限的环境中优化影响力。
查看英文原文 English abstract
Background: Germline genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants (PVs) is recommended for all ovarian cancer patients, as identifying PVs informs treatment planning and facilitates family cascade testing. However, in resource-limited settings, high testing costs often limit feasibility and uptake. An alternative approach is to use predictive models to prioritize patients with a higher likelihood of carrying PVs, optimizing resource allocation. Existing models are largely Western-derived and underperform in Asians; while we have a validated model for breast cancer, no equivalent model currently exists for ovarian cancer.
Methods: Using data from a multi-center study of 1,126 Asian ovarian cancer patients (including 147 BRCA PV carriers), we developed predictive models incorporating routinely collected information such as cancer history and clinicopathological features to estimate likelihood of carrying BRCA PVs. We evaluated model performance in terms of discrimination, calibration, overall accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity, and compared the associated genetic testing volumes and costs to those of universal testing.
Results: Our final model demonstrated good calibration and strong discriminatory power, with an area under the curve of 0.80 (95% confidence interval: 0.74-0.87). Factors included in the model were age at diagnosis, ethnicity, personal and family cancer history, and clinicopathological features. At the optimal threshold, the model achieved 77% accuracy (73% sensitivity and 73% specificity), compared with 13% accuracy for universal testing (100% sensitivity but 0% specificity). In practice, this translates to identifying one carrier for every three patients tested, versus one in eight under universal testing, reducing the genetic testing cost per carrier identified from USD 4,000 to USD 2,000. From a budget perspective, even when we need to detect every carrier, as in universal testing, the model reduces testing volume by 15%, yielding potential savings of USD 70,000 for every 800 patients screened annually.
Conclusions: Targeted testing using a mutation prediction model offers a more efficient alternative when universal testing is not feasible, with adjustable risk thresholds that can be tailored to local resources to optimize impact in resource-limited settings.
利益披露 Disclosure
B. Ang, None.
S. Yoon,
Astra Zeneca Other, Speaker’s honoraria from Astra Zeneca.
Genetic Counselling Society Malaysia Other, Vice president of Genetic Counselling Society Malaysia.
J. Lim, None..
N. Hassan, None..
M. Tai, None..
Z. Wong, None..
J. Chow, None..
X. Lee, None..
M. Thong, None..
G. Ch’ng, None..
J. Omar, None..
C. Yong, None..
I. Aliyas, None..
R. Abdul Malik, None..
S. Subramaniam, None..
W. Sim, None..
C. Lim, None..
S. Lee, None..
K. Lim, None..
M. Shafiee, None..
F. Ismail, None..
M. Ismail, None..
M. Mohamed Jamli, None..
S. Kumarasamy, None..
J. Low, None..
A. Ahmad Mustafa, None..
M. Makanjang, None..
S. Tayib, None..
N. Cheah, None..
C. Fong, None..
K. Ho, None..
A. Deniel, None..
S. Ang, None..
A. Ahmad Badruddin, None..
L. Tho, None..
B. Lim, None..
Y. Woo, None..
W. Ho, None..
S. Teo, None.