Implementing Integrated Genomic Risk Assessments for Breast Cancer: Lessons Learned from the eMERGE Study
Liu, C.; Crew, K.; Morse, J.; Linder, J. E.; Antoniou, A. C.; Carver, T.; Cortopassi, J.; Peterson, J. F.; Ta, C. N.; Hoell, C.; Prows, C.; Kenny, E. E.; Miller, E.; Perez, E.; Jarvik, G. P.; Bland, H. T.; Odgis, J. A.; Mittendorf, K. F.; Bonini, K. E.; McGuffin, K.; Kottyan, L. C.; Maradik, M.; Limdi, N.; Abul-Husn, N. S.; Marathe, P. N.; Suckiel, S. A.; Aguilar, S.; Lewis, T. J.; Wei, W.-Q.; Luo, Y.; Freimuth, R. R.; Hakonarson, H.; Weng, C.; Chung, W. K.; Wiesner, G. L.
Show abstract
ObjectiveTo develop and implement a pipeline for integrated breast cancer risk assessment using the BOADICEA model within the eMERGE study, incorporating polygenic risk scores (PRS), monogenic variants, family history, and clinical factors. Materials and MethodsA pipeline was deployed across ten eMERGE clinical sites, integrating data from REDCap surveys, PRS reports, monogenic reports, and pedigrees via CanRisk Application Programming Interface (API). The process included design, customization, technical implementation, testing, and refinement. ResultsThe pipeline successfully generated integrated risk scores for >10,000 females. Of these, 3.6% were classified as high-risk ([≥]25% lifetime risk), and 0.9% harbored rare pathogenic variants in BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, or PTEN. High PRS only scores were identified in 5.6% of participants. Among those with high PRS, 34% also had high-risk based on integrated scores. API and User Interface (UI) results were highly concordant, with an average difference of 0.13%. DiscussionKey challenges included integrating diverse data sources, handling missing data, and standardizing pedigree formats. Risk classification discrepancies highlighted the need for refined communication strategies. ConclusionThis study demonstrates the feasibility of PRS-integrated breast cancer risk assessment in clinical settings but underscores challenges in data integration and risk communication. Future work should enhance recalibration for diverse populations and streamline workflows for risk interpretation and update.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Development and evaluation of a novel educational program for providers on the use of polygenic risk scores 93%
- The Gene Curation Coalition: A global effort to harmonize gene-disease evidence resources 92%
- Evaluating the impact of modeling choices on the performance of integrated genetic and clinical models 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Combining rare and common genetic variants improves population risk stratification for breast cancer 94%
- Evaluation of DNA-poli: study protocol of a randomised controlled trial to assess a digital platform for family cascade genetic testing and predictive genetic counselling 89%
- Early Diagnosis of Vascular Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome Through AI-Powered Facial Analysis: Results from the Montalcino Aortic Consortium 89%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Segregation analysis of 17,425 population-based breast cancer families: evidence for genetic susceptibility and risk prediction 92%
- A joint transcriptome-wide association study across multiple tissues identifies new candidate susceptibility genes for breast cancer 92%
- Evidence-based recommendations for gene-specific ACMG/AMP variant classification from the ClinGen ENIGMA BRCA1 and BRCA2 Variant Curation Expert Panel 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Putative breast cancer risk variants from populations of South Asian ancestry are under-represented in public variant classification databases 92%
- A genome-wide association study of mammographic texture variation 91%
- Comparative validation of the BOADICEA and Tyrer-Cuzick breast cancer risk models incorporating classical risk factors and polygenic risk in a population-based prospective cohort 90%
"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.