Precision Colorectal Cancer Screening with Polygenic Risk Score
Tasa, T.; Puustusmaa, M.; Tonisson, N.; Kolk, B.; Padrik, P.
Show abstract
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common cancer in women and third most common cancer in men. Genome-wide association studies have identified numerous genetic variants (SNPs) independently associated with CRC. The effects of such SNPs can be combined into a single polygenic risk score (PRS). Stratification of individuals according to PRS could be introduced to primary and secondary prevention. Our aim was to combine risk stratification of a sex-specific PRS model with recommendations for individualized CRC screening. Previously published PRS models for predicting the risk of CRC were collected from the literature. These were validated on the UK Biobank (UKBB) consisting of a total of 458 696 quality-controlled genotypes with 1810 and 1348 prevalent male cases, and 2410 and 1810 incident male and female cases. The best performing sex-specific model was selected based on the AUC in prevalent data and independently validated in the incident dataset. Using Estonian CRC background information, we performed absolute risk simulations and examined the ability of PRS in risk stratifying individual screening recommendations. The best-performing model included 91 SNPs. The C-index of the best performing model in the dataset was 0.613 (SE = 0.007) and hazard ratio (HR) per unit of PRS was 1.53 (1.47 - 1.59) for males. Respective metrics for females were 0.617 (SE = 0.006) and 1.50 (1.44 - 1.58). PRS risk simulations showed that a genetically average 50-year-old female doubles her risk by age 58 (55 in males) and triples it by age 63 (59 in males). In addition, the best performing PRS model was able to identify individuals in one of seven groups proposed by Naber et al. for different coloscopy screening recommendation regimens. We have combined PRS-based recommendations for individual screening attendance. Our approach is easily adaptable to other nationalities by using population-specific background data of other genetically similar populations.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- A Comprehensive Epithelial Tubo-Ovarian Cancer Risk Prediction Model Incorporating Genetic and Epidemiological Risk Factors 95%
- Estimating cancer risk in carriers of Lynch syndrome variants in UK Biobank 94%
- Validation of the BOADICEA Model in a Prospective Cohort of BRCA1/2 Pathogenic Variant Carriers 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Optimization of Multi-Ancestry Polygenic Risk Score Disease Prediction Models 91%
- Controlling for Human Population Stratification in Rare Variant Association Studies 90%
- Increased adiposity is protective for breast and prostate cancer: a Mendelian randomisation study using up to 132,413 breast cancer cases and 85,907 prostate cancer cases. 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- A new colorectal cancer risk prediction model incorporating family history, personal and environmental factors 95%
- A Quantitative Framework to Study Potential Benefits and Harms of Multi-cancer Early Detection Testing 93%
- Hereditary haemochromatosis beyond liver cancer: increased risk of prostate cancer during an 11-year follow-up 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Identifying therapeutic targets for cancer: 2,094 circulating proteins and risk of nine cancers 93%
- Pan-cancer analysis demonstrates that integrating polygenic risk scores with modifiable risk factors improves risk prediction 91%
- A unified framework for estimating country-specific cumulative incidence for 18 diseases stratified by polygenic risk 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Effects of Screening for Colorectal Cancer: Development, Documentation and Validation of a Multistate Markov Model 95%
- Prediction of Colorectal Cancer Risk Based on Profiling with Common Genetic Variants 94%
- Circulating white blood cell traits and colorectal cancer risk: A Mendelian randomization study 94%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.