A clinical pilot study for personalized risk?based breast cancer screening utilizing the polygenic risk score
Hovda, T.; Sober, S.; Padrik, P.; Kruuv-Kao, K.; Grindedal, E. M.; Vamre, T. B. A.; Eikeland, E.; Hofvind, S.; Sahlberg, K. K.
Show abstract
BackgroundPopulation-based mammographic screening is primarily age-based. However, breast cancer risk is multifactorial, and women may benefit from personalized risk-based screening. This pilot study aimed to explore the use of polygenic risk score (PRS) as a tool for risk stratification in personalized screening. MethodsWe included 80 women aged 40-49 years referred for clinical mammography. Exclusion criteria were prior breast cancer or premalignant breast disease, and previous genetic testing. After DNA collection, PRS was calculated from 2805 Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs). Screening recommendations were based on each participants relative 10-year breast cancer risk estimated from PRS and compared with the 10-year risk of an average woman of the same age. Women with a self-reported family history of cancer meeting standard criteria were referred for gene panel testing for pathogenic variants in high-risk genes. A follow up questionnaire regarding participants experiences was distributed 6-9 months after PRS testing. ResultsMean age was 45.2 years (SD 2.8). Mean relative 10-year breast cancer risk was 1.18 (SD 0.57). Based on PRS, 40 participants were recommended standard biennial screening 50-69 years, while 40 were advised to begin biennial screening before age 50. Among these, 7 were recommended annual mammography from when their 10-year risk reached twice that of an average 50-year-old. Twenty-one women underwent gene panel testing; no pathogenic variants in breast cancer genes were identified. Five women were advised annual mammography from 40-60 years due to family history of breast cancer, regardless of PRS. Most respondents viewed breast cancer risk assessment positively and did not report increased anxiety after testing. ConclusionsPolygenic risk score testing may influence current screening recommendations and contribute to more personalized risk-based breast cancer screening strategies.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Novel mammogram-based measures improve breast cancer risk prediction beyond an established mammographic density measure 95%
- Reproductive Factors and Risk of Breast Cancer by Tumor Subtypes among Ghanaian Women: A Population-based Case-control Study 93%
- Prelude to Malignancy: A Gene Expression Signature in Normal Mammary Gland from Breast Cancer Patients Suggests Pre-tumorous Alterations and Is Associated with Adverse Outcomes 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Investigating the relationship between breast cancer risk factors and an AI-generated mammographic texture feature in the Nurses' Health Study II 95%
- An updated PREDICT breast cancer prognostic model including the benefits and harms of radiotherapy 93%
- Characterization of Body Composition Dynamics Throughout Treatment in Patients with Early-Stage Breast Cancer 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- BREAst screening Tailored for HEr (BREATHE) - A Study Protocol On Personalised Risk-based Breast Cancer Screening Programme 97%
- Understanding motivations of older women to continue or discontinue breast cancer screening 93%
- Factors associated with breast lesions among women attending select teaching and referral health facilities in Kenya: A cross-sectional study 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Mammographic density assessed using deep learning in women at high risk of developing breast cancer: the effect of weight change on density 94%
- Model uncertainty estimates for deep learning mammographic density prediction using ordinal and classification approaches 90%
- Breast density prediction from low and standard dose mammograms using deep learning: effect of image resolution and model training approach on prediction quality 83%
"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.