Adding genetic scores to risk models in colorectal cancer.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Gargallo-Puyuelo CJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6690674 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Adding genetic scores to risk models in colorectal cancer.
Gargallo-Puyuelo Carla J CJ Lanas Ángel Á Asunción García-Gonzalez María M
Oncotarget 20190806 47
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundGenome-wide association studies have identified numerous single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) as associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) risk in populations of European descent. However, their utility for predicting risk to CRC in Asians remains unknown. A case-cohort study (random sub-cohort N=1,685) from the Korean Cancer Prevention Study-II (KCPS-II) (N=145,842) was used. Twenty-three SNPs identified in previous 47 studies were genotyped on the KCPS-II sub-cohort members. A genetic risk score (GRS) was calculated by summing the number of risk alleles over all SNPs. Prediction models with or without GRS were evaluated in terms of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and the continuous net reclassification index (NRI).ResultsSeven of 23 SNPs showed significant association with CRC and rectal cancer in Koreans, but not with colon cancer alone. AUROCs (95% CI) for traditional risk score (TRS) alone and TRS plus GRS were 0.73 (0.69-0.78) and 0.74 (0.70-0.78) for CRC, and 0.71 (0.65-0.77) and 0.74 (0.68-0.79) for rectal cancer, respectively. The NRI (95% CI) for a prediction model with GRS compared to the model with TRS alone was 0.17 (-0.05-0.37) for CRC and 0.41 (0.10-0.68) for rectal cancer alone.ConclusionOur results indicate genetic variants may be useful for predicting risk to CRC in the Koreans, especially risk for rectal cancer alone. Moreover, this study suggests effective prediction models for colon and rectal cancer should be developed separately.
| S-EPMC4425895 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background. Propensity score usage seems to be growing in popularity leading researchers to question the possible role of propensity scores in prediction modeling, despite the lack of a theoretical rationale. It is suspected that such requests are due to the lack of differentiation regarding the goals of predictive modeling versus causal inference modeling. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to formally examine the effect of propensity scores on predictive performance. Our hypothesis is that a multivariable regression model that adjusts for all covariates will perform as well as or better than those models utilizing propensity scores with respect to model discrimination and calibration. Methods. The most commonly encountered statistical scenarios for medical prediction (logistic and proportional hazards regression) were used to investigate this research question. Random cross-validation was performed 500 times to correct for optimism. The multivariable regression models adjusting for all covariates were compared with models that included adjustment for or weighting with the propensity scores. The methods were compared based on three predictive performance measures: (1) concordance indices; (2) Brier scores; and (3) calibration curves. Results. Multivariable models adjusting for all covariates had the highest average concordance index, the lowest average Brier score, and the best calibration. Propensity score adjustment and inverse probability weighting models without adjustment for all covariates performed worse than full models and failed to improve predictive performance with full covariate adjustment. Conclusion. Propensity score techniques did not improve prediction performance measures beyond multivariable adjustment. Propensity scores are not recommended if the analytical goal is pure prediction modeling.
| S-EPMC3740143 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Genome-wide variation data with millions of genetic markers have become commonplace. However, the potential for interpretation and application of these data for clinical assessment of outcomes of interest, and prediction of disease risk, is currently not fully realized. Many common complex diseases now have numerous, well-established risk loci and likely harbor many genetic determinants with effects too small to be detected at genome-wide levels of statistical significance. A simple and intuitive approach for converting genetic data to a predictive measure of disease susceptibility is to aggregate the effects of these loci into a single measure, the genetic risk score. Here, we describe some common methods and software packages for calculating genetic risk scores and polygenic risk scores, with focus on studies of common complex diseases. We review the basic information needed, as well as important considerations for constructing genetic risk scores, including specific requirements for phenotypic and genetic data, and limitations in their application. © 2019 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
| S-EPMC6941594 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Colorectal cancer screening reduces colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Risk models based on phenotypic variables have relatively good discrimination in external validation and may improve efficiency of screening. Models incorporating genetic variables may perform better. In this review, we updated our previous review by searching Medline and EMBASE from the end date of that review (January 2014) to February 2019 to identify models incorporating at least one SNP and applicable to asymptomatic individuals in the general population. We identified 23 new models, giving a total of 29. Of those in which the SNP selection was on the basis of published genome-wide association studies, in external or split-sample validation the AUROC was 0.56 to 0.57 for models that included SNPs alone, 0.61 to 0.63 for SNPs in combination with other risk factors, and 0.56 to 0.70 when age was included. Calibration was only reported for four. The addition of SNPs to other risk factors increases discrimination by 0.01 to 0.06. Public health modeling studies suggest that, if determined by risk models, the range of starting ages for screening would be several years greater than using family history alone. Further validation and calibration studies are needed alongside modeling studies to assess the population-level impact of introducing genetic risk-based screening programs.
| S-EPMC7610631 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients are predisposed to venous thromboembolism (VTE). This study aimed to (1) evaluate the efficacy of 4 existing cancer-specific VTE models in predicting VTE incidence among hospitalized mCRC patients, and (2) examine the influence of incorporating mCRC molecular subtypes into these models. We conducted an evaluation of 4 cancer-specific VTE models, including Khorana, Vienna CATS, Protecht, and CONKO in a dataset involving 1392 mCRC patients. To evaluate the predictive performance, we utilized receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for both the original models and the modified models that incorporated microsatellite instability status or KRAS/NRAS/BRAF mutations. Moreover, we computed the net reclassification improvement (NRI) to quantify the enhancements made to the modified VTE risk models. All models demonstrated a moderate area under the ROC curve (ROC-AUC) when predicting the occurrence of VTE: Khorana (0.550), Vienna CATS (0.671), Protecht (0.652), and CONKO (0.578). The incorporation of KRAS and BRAF mutations significantly improved the ROC-AUC of all 4 existing models (modified Khorana: 0.796, modified Vienna CATS: 0.832, modified Protecht: 0.834, and modified CONKO: 0.809). After dichotomizing the risk using a threshold of 3 points and comparing them with the original models, NRI values for the 4 modified models were 0.97, 0.95, 1.11, and 0.98, respectively. All 4 cancer-specific VTE models exhibit moderate performance when identifying mCRC patients at high risk of VTE. Incorporating KRAS and BRAF mutations may enhance the prediction of VTE in hospitalized mCRC patients.
| S-EPMC10498692 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) among individuals aged younger than 50 years has been increasing. As screening guidelines lower the recommended age of screening initiation, concerns including the burden on screening capacity and costs have been recognized, suggesting that an individualized approach may be warranted. We developed risk prediction models for early-onset CRC that incorporate an environmental risk score (ERS), including 16 lifestyle and environmental factors, and a polygenic risk score (PRS) of 141 variants.MethodsRelying on risk score weights for ERS and PRS derived from studies of CRC at all ages, we evaluated risks for early-onset CRC in 3486 cases and 3890 controls aged younger than 50 years. Relative and absolute risks for early-onset CRC were assessed according to values of the ERS and PRS. The discriminatory performance of these scores was estimated using the covariate-adjusted area under the receiver operating characteristic curve.ResultsIncreasing values of ERS and PRS were associated with increasing relative risks for early-onset CRC (odds ratio per SD of ERS = 1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.08 to 1.20; odds ratio per SD of PRS = 1.59, 95% CI = 1.51 to 1.68), both contributing to case-control discrimination (area under the curve = 0.631, 95% CI = 0.615 to 0.647). Based on absolute risks, we can expect 26 excess cases per 10 000 men and 21 per 10 000 women among those scoring at the 90th percentile for both risk scores.ConclusionsPersonal risk scores have the potential to identify individuals at differential relative and absolute risk for early-onset CRC. Improved discrimination may aid in targeted CRC screening of younger, high-risk individuals, potentially improving outcomes.
| S-EPMC9002285 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Several polygenic risk scores (PRSs) have been developed to predict the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) in European descendants. We used genome-wide association study (GWAS) data from 22 702 cases and 212 486 controls of Asian ancestry to develop PRSs and validated them in two case-control studies (1454 Korean and 1736 Chinese). Eleven PRSs were derived using three approaches: GWAS-identified CRC risk SNPs, CRC risk variants identified through fine-mapping of known risk loci and genome-wide risk prediction algorithms. Logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and area under the curve (AUC). PRS115-EAS , a PRS with 115 GWAS-reported risk variants derived from East-Asian data, validated significantly better than PRS115-EUR derived from European descendants. In the Korea validation set, OR per SD increase of PRS115-EAS was 1.63 (95% CI = 1.46-1.82; AUC = 0.63), compared with OR of 1.44 (95% CI = 1.29-1.60, AUC = 0.60) for PRS115-EUR . PRS115-EAS/EUR derived using meta-analysis results of both populations slightly improved the AUC to 0.64. Similar but weaker associations were found in the China validation set. Individuals among the highest 5% of PRS115-EAS/EUR have a 2.52-fold elevated CRC risk compared with the medium (41-60th) risk group and have a 12% to 20% risk of developing CRC by age 85. PRSs constructed using results from fine-mapping and genome-wide algorithms did not perform as well as PRS115-EAS and PRS115-EAS/EUR in risk prediction, possibly due to a small sample size. Our results indicate that CRC PRSs are promising in predicting CRC risk in East Asians and highlights the importance of using population-specific data to build CRC risk prediction models.
| S-EPMC9509464 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHereditary factors, including single genetic variants and family history, can be used for targeting colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but limited data exist on the impact of polygenic risk scores (PRS) on risk-based CRC screening.MethodsUsing longitudinal health and genomics data on 453,733 Finnish individuals including 8801 CRC cases, we estimated the impact of a genome-wide CRC PRS on CRC screening initiation age through population-calibrated incidence estimation over the life course in men and women.ResultsCompared to the cumulative incidence of CRC at age 60 in Finland (the current age for starting screening in Finland), a comparable cumulative incidence was reached 5 and 11 years earlier in persons with high PRS (80-99% and >99%, respectively), while those with a low PRS (< 20%) reached comparable incidence 7 years later. The PRS was associated with increased risk of post-colonoscopy CRC after negative colonoscopy (hazard ratio 1.76 per PRS SD, 95% CI 1.54-2.01). Moreover, the PRS predicted colorectal adenoma incidence and improved incident CRC risk prediction over non-genetic risk factors.ConclusionsOur findings demonstrate that a CRC PRS can be used for risk stratification of CRC, with further research needed to optimally integrate the PRS into risk-based screening.
| S-EPMC10876651 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm and the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study breast cancer risk models are used to provide advice on screening intervals and chemoprevention. We evaluated the performance of these models, which now incorporate polygenic risk scores (PRSs), using a prospective cohort study.MethodsWe used a case-cohort design, involving women in the Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study aged 50-75 years when surveyed in 2003-2007, of whom 408 had a first primary breast cancer diagnosed within 10 years (cases), and 2783 were from the subcohort. Ten-year risks were calculated based on lifestyle factors, family history data, and a 313-variant PRS. Discrimination was assessed using a C-statistic compared with 0.50 and calibration using the ratio of expected to observed number of cases (E/O).ResultsWhen the PRS was added to models with lifestyle factors and family history, the C-statistic (95% confidence interval [CI]) increased from 0.57 (0.54 to 0.60) to 0.62 (0.60 to 0.65) using IBIS and from 0.56 (0.53 to 0.59) to 0.62 (0.59 to 0.64) using BOADICEA. IBIS underpredicted risk (E/O = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.48 to 0.80) for women in the lowest risk category (<1.7%) and overpredicted risk (E/O = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.18 to 1.67) in the highest risk category (≥5%), using the Hosmer-Lemeshow test for calibration in quantiles of risk and a 2-sided P value less than .001. BOADICEA underpredicted risk (E/O = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.67 to 0.99) in the second highest risk category (3.4%-5%); the Hosmer-Lemeshow test and a 2-sided P value was equal to .02.ConclusionsAlthough the inclusion of a 313 genetic variant PRS doubles discriminatory accuracy (relative to reference 0.50), models with and without this PRS have relatively modest discrimination and might require recalibration before their clinical and wider use are promoted.
| S-EPMC8099999 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the benefit of combining polygenic risk scores with the QCancer-10 (colorectal cancer) prediction model for non-genetic risk to identify people at highest risk of colorectal cancer.DesignPopulation based cohort study.SettingData from the UK Biobank study, collected between March 2006 and July 2010.Participants434 587 individuals with complete data for genetics and QCancer-10 predictions were included in the QCancer-10 plus polygenic risk score modelling and validation cohorts.Main outcome measuresPrediction of colorectal cancer diagnosis by genetic, non-genetic, and combined risk models. Using data from UK Biobank, six different polygenic risk scores for colorectal cancer were developed using LDpred2 polygenic risk score software, clumping, and thresholding approaches, and a model based on genome-wide significant polymorphisms. The top performing genome-wide polygenic risk score and the score containing genome-wide significant polymorphisms were combined with QCancer-10 and performance was compared with QCancer-10 alone. Case-control (logistic regression) and time-to-event (Cox proportional hazards) analyses were used to evaluate risk model performance in men and women.ResultsPolygenic risk scores derived using the LDpred2 program performed best, with an odds ratio per standard deviation of 1.584 (95% confidence interval 1.536 to 1.633), and top age and sex adjusted C statistic of 0.733 (95% confidence interval 0.710 to 0.753) in logistic regression models in the validation cohort. Integrated QCancer-10 plus polygenic risk score models out-performed QCancer-10 alone. In men, the integrated LDpred2 model produced a C statistic of 0.730 (0.720 to 0.741) and explained variation of 28.2% (26.3 to 30.1), compared with 0.693 (0.682 to 0.704) and 21.0% (18.9 to 23.1) for QCancer-10 alone. In women, the C statistic for the integrated LDpred2 model was 0.687 (0.673 to 0.702) and explained variation was 21.0% (18.7 to 23.7), compared with 0.645 (0.631 to 0.659) and 12.4% (10.3 to 14.6) for QCancer-10 alone. In the top 20% of individuals at highest absolute risk, the sensitivity and specificity of the integrated LDpred2 models for predicting colorectal cancer diagnosis was 47.8% and 80.3% respectively in men, and 42.7% and 80.1% respectively in women, with increases in absolute risk in the top 5% of risk in men of 3.47-fold and in women of 2.77-fold compared with the median. Illustrative decision curve analysis indicated a small incremental improvement in net benefit with QCancer-10 plus polygenic risk score models compared with QCancer-10 alone.ConclusionsIntegrating polygenic risk scores with QCancer-10 modestly improves risk prediction over use of QCancer-10 alone. Given that QCancer-10 data can be obtained relatively easily from health records, use of polygenic risk score in risk stratified population screening for colorectal cancer currently has no clear justification. The added benefit, cost effectiveness, and acceptability of polygenic risk scores should be carefully evaluated in a real life screening setting before implementation in the general population.
| S-EPMC9644277 | biostudies-literature