PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Elmaihub, Eanas
AU  - Alhudiri, Inas
AU  - Elzagheid, Adam
AU  - Elfagi, Fakria
AU  - Hassen, Elham
TI  - A pivotal study on patients’ selection for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations by different models in Libyan breast cancer women
AID  - 10.1101/2023.01.20.23284677
DP  - 2023 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2023.01.20.23284677
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/07/25/2023.01.20.23284677.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/07/25/2023.01.20.23284677.full
AB  - Introduction The BRCA mutation spectrum of familial breast cancer in Libya remains unknown. Several genetic models developed to predict the probability of BRCA1/2 mutations have not been applied in Libya, where the NCCN criteria are used for highly penetrating breast cancer susceptibility genes. This study aimed to predict BRCA1/2 mutation probability in familial breast cancer and eligibility for genetic testing by using BOADICEA and BRCAPRO models and NCCN criteria.Methods BRCA1/2 mutations were retrospectively predicted in 62 unrelated women with familial breast cancer between 2018 and 2021. Logistic regression, ROC analysis, and AUC were used to compare NCCN referral criteria with the BRCAPRO and BOADICEA scores.Results Of 62 breast cancer patients, 32 (51.6%) (mean age 43.5±8 years) were predicted by both models as BRCA mutation carriers. BRCAPRO predicted BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in 27.4% and 41.9% of the women, respectively. BOADICEA predicted 8% for BRCA1 and 29% for BRCA2. At least one NCCN criterion was met by 50/62 women (80.6%). Three criteria were statistically significant predictors in BRCAPRO and BOADICEA: breast cancer at ≤ 50 years with one or more close blood relatives with breast cancer, breast cancer patient with a close relative of male breast cancer, and triple-negative breast cancer. For the three respective criteria, sensitivity was 0.78, 0.89 and 0.75, specificity was 0.33, 0.39 and 0.22, AUC was 0.72, 0.75 and 0.76, PPV was 78%, 27.5% and 33.3, and NPV was 67%, 97% and 95.5.Conclusions BODICEA and BRCAPRO models are suitable for recommending genetic testing for BRCA gene mutations. The NCCN criteria are too broad.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study did not receive any fundingAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Research Ethics Committee of National Cancer Institute, Sabratha, Libya, gave ethical approval for this workI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors