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

Jessica L. Corredor,Elissa B. Dodd-Eaton,Jacynda Woodman-Ross,Ashley Woodson,Nam H. Nguyen,Gang Peng,Sierra Green,Angelica M. Gutierrez,Banu K. Arun,Wenyi Wang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.07.09.24310095
2024-07-10
Abstract:Purpose Current clinical guidelines for genetic testing for Li-Fraumeni Syndrome (LFS) have many limitations, primarily the criteria don't consider detailed personal and family history information and may miss many individuals with LFS. A personalized risk assessment tool, LFSPRO, was created to estimate a proband's risk for LFS based on personal and family history information. The purpose of this study is to compare LFSPRO to existing clinical criteria to determine if LFSPRO can outperform these tools. Additionally, we gauged genetic counselors' (GCs) experience using LFSPRO for their patients. Methods Between December 2021 and March 2024, GCs identified patients concerning for LFS based on the patients' personal and family history information. This information was entered into LFSPRO to predict the risk to have a pathogenic/pathogenic (LP/P) germline TP53 variant. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) was compared between LFSPRO and Chompret criteria. Select GCs were asked to fill out surveys regarding their experience using LFSPRO following their genetic counseling appointments. Results LFSPRO's sensitivity and specificity were 0.529 and 0.781 compared to Chompret's respective 0.235 and 0.677. Additionally, LFSPRO had a positive predictive value (PPV) of 0.30 compared to Chompret's 0.114. LFSPRO's risk prediction was concordant with genetic testing results in 75% of probands. Eighty-one percent of GC surveys reported LFSPRO being concordant with the GC's expectations and 75% would feel comfortable sharing the results with patients. Conclusion LFSPRO showed improved sensitivity and specificity compared to Chompret criteria and GCs report a positive experience with LFSPRO. LFSPRO can be used to increase access to genetic testing for patients at risk for LFS and could help healthcare providers give more direct risk assessments regarding LFS testing and management for patients.
Oncology
What problem does this paper attempt to address?