BMC Cancer (Feb 2012)

Predictive models for mutations in mismatch repair genes: implication for genetic counseling in developing countries

  • Monteiro Santos Erika,
  • Valentin Mev,
  • Carneiro Felipe,
  • de Oliveira Ligia,
  • de Oliveira Ferreira Fabio,
  • Junior Samuel,
  • Nakagawa Wilson,
  • Gomy Israel,
  • de Faria Ferraz Victor,
  • da Silva Junior Wilson,
  • Carraro Dirce,
  • Rossi Benedito

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-12-64
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 12, no. 1
p. 64

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background Lynch syndrome (LS) is the most common form of inherited predisposition to colorectal cancer (CRC), accounting for 2-5% of all CRC. LS is an autosomal dominant disease characterized by mutations in the mismatch repair genes mutL homolog 1 (MLH1), mutS homolog 2 (MSH2), postmeiotic segregation increased 1 (PMS1), post-meiotic segregation increased 2 (PMS2) and mutS homolog 6 (MSH6). Mutation risk prediction models can be incorporated into clinical practice, facilitating the decision-making process and identifying individuals for molecular investigation. This is extremely important in countries with limited economic resources. This study aims to evaluate sensitivity and specificity of five predictive models for germline mutations in repair genes in a sample of individuals with suspected Lynch syndrome. Methods Blood samples from 88 patients were analyzed through sequencing MLH1, MSH2 and MSH6 genes. The probability of detecting a mutation was calculated using the PREMM, Barnetson, MMRpro, Wijnen and Myriad models. To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of the models, receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed. Results Of the 88 patients included in this analysis, 31 mutations were identified: 16 were found in the MSH2 gene, 15 in the MLH1 gene and no pathogenic mutations were identified in the MSH6 gene. It was observed that the AUC for the PREMM (0.846), Barnetson (0.850), MMRpro (0.821) and Wijnen (0.807) models did not present significant statistical difference. The Myriad model presented lower AUC (0.704) than the four other models evaluated. Considering thresholds of ≥ 5%, the models sensitivity varied between 1 (Myriad) and 0.87 (Wijnen) and specificity ranged from 0 (Myriad) to 0.38 (Barnetson). Conclusions The Barnetson, PREMM, MMRpro and Wijnen models present similar AUC. The AUC of the Myriad model is statistically inferior to the four other models.