A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Comparison of PREMM5 and PREMMplus Risk Assessment Models to Identify Lynch Syndrome. | LitMetric

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] 89.2% [95% CI, 84.4 to 93.0]) and clinic-based cohorts (60.8% [95% CI, 52.7 to 68.4] 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] 0.71 [95% CI, 0.67 to 0.75]) and clinic-based cohorts (ROC-AUC, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.75 to 0.84] 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.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/PO-24-00691DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

risk assessment
12
models identify
12
premm5 premmplus
8
assessment models
8
lynch syndrome
8
[95%
8
clinic-based cohorts
8
premmplus
6
risk
6
models
6

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!