4.7 Article

Reliability of Tumor Testing Compared to Germline Testing for Detecting BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutations in Patients with Epithelial Ovarian Cancer

期刊

JOURNAL OF PERSONALIZED MEDICINE
卷 11, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jpm11070593

关键词

BRCA mutations; tumor testing; germline testing; variants of uncertain significance

资金

  1. Astra Zeneca, Vienna, Austria

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study compared tumor DNA with blood DNA sequencing to evaluate the reliability of BRCA tumor testing results. The results showed that tumor testing identified the majority of pathogenic germline BRCA mutations but missed some patients. Tumor testing is of significant value in treatment decisions for patients with EOC.
Background: BRCA 1/2 mutation status has become one of the most important parameters for treatment decision in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). The aim of this study was to compare tumor DNA with blood DNA sequencing to evaluate the reliability of BRCA tumor testing results. Methods: Patients who were treated for EOC between 2003 and 2019 at the Medical University of Vienna and underwent both germline (gBRCA) and tumor (tBRCA) testing for BRCA mutations were identified. We calculated the concordance rate and further analyzed discordant cases. Results: Out of 140 patients with EOC, gBRCA mutation was found in 47 (33.6%) and tBRCA mutation in 53 (37.9%) patients. Tumor testing identified an additional 9/140 (6.4%) patients with somatic BRCA mutation and negative germline testing. The comparison of germline testing with tumor testing revealed a concordance rate of 93.5% and a negative predictive value of tumor testing of 96.0%. After BRCA variants of uncertain significance were included in the analysis, concordance rate decreased to 90.9%. Conclusion: Tumor testing identified the majority of pathogenic germline BRCA mutations but missed three (2.1%) patients. In contrast, nine (6.4%) patients harboring a somatic BRCA mutation would have been missed by gBRCA testing only.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据