Back

Performance of LFSPRO TP53 germline carrier risk predictions compared to standard genetic counseling practice on prospectively collected probands

Corredor, J. L.; Dodd-Eaton, E. B.; Woodman-Ross, J.; Woodson, A.; Nguyen, N. H.; Peng, G.; Green, S.; Gutierrez, A. M.; Arun, B. K.; Wang, W.

2024-07-10 oncology
10.1101/2024.07.09.24310095 medRxiv
Show abstract

Genetic counseling and testing for germline mutations are essential for identifying individuals at increased risk for cancer. Pathogenic variants in TP53 are diagnostic of Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS), a highly penetrant disorder with diverse, early-onset tumors. Current clinical guidelines, such as Chompret and Classic criteria, provide frameworks for identifying individuals at risk for likely pathogenic/pathogenic TP53 variants; however, genetic counselors often encounter patients with features concerning for LFS that do not clearly meet established criteria, creating challenges for risk assessment and testing decisions. We evaluated whether LFSPRO, a Mendelian, family-history-based model that estimates the individuals probability of harboring a deleterious TP53 variant, improves carrier identification relative to guideline criteria. In a prospectively collected cohort of 182 probands who underwent clinical genetic counseling and germline TP53 testing, LFSPRO showed superior discrimination compared with Chompret criteria, with higher sensitivity (81% vs. 33%) and specificity (88% vs. 65%) and improved predictive values (PPV 0.53 vs. 0.14; NPV 0.96 vs. 0.85). Receiver operating characteristic analysis confirmed strong discriminatory performance (AUC=0.88). Calibration analysis using observed-to-expected ratios indicated good agreement between predicted and observed carrier frequencies (Observed/Expected=1.07). These findings demonstrate that LFSPRO outperforms traditional guideline-based criteria for identifying TP53 mutation carriers in real-world clinical settings. By providing quantitative, well-calibrated carrier probabilities rather than binary classifications, LFSPRO can enhance genetic counseling and support testing decisions, particularly for individuals who do not clearly meet existing criteria.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
npj Genomic Medicine
33 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.8%
2
Genetics in Medicine
69 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
12.4%
3
The American Journal of Human Genetics
206 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
10.2%
4
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.2%
5
JCO Precision Oncology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.9%
50% of probability mass above
6
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 17%
6.4%
7
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.0%
8
Cancer Medicine
24 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.6%
9
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 46%
2.4%
10
Human Mutation
29 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
11
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
12
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 55%
1.3%
13
European Journal of Human Genetics
49 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.2%
14
European Journal of Cancer
10 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
15
The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics
36 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
16
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
17
Genome Medicine
154 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.7%
18
Annals of Oncology
13 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
19
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 59%
0.7%
20
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism
35 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
21
Journal of Clinical Investigation
164 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
22
npj Precision Oncology
48 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
23
Journal of Medical Genetics
28 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.6%
24
Clinical Chemistry
22 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
25
International Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
26
Nature Medicine
117 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%
27
British Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
28
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.5%
29
BMC Bioinformatics
383 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.5%