Breast cancer risk stratification using genetic and non-genetic risk assessment tools for 246,142 women in the UK Biobank

被引:11
|
作者
Ho, Peh Joo [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Lim, Elaine H. [4 ]
Hartman, Mikael [2 ,3 ,5 ]
Wong, Fuh Yong [6 ]
Li, Jingmei [1 ,2 ,7 ]
机构
[1] ASTAR Res Ent, Genome Inst Singapore, Lab Womens Hlth & Genet, Singapore, Singapore
[2] Natl Univ Singapore, Yong Loo Lin Sch Med, Dept Surg, Singapore, Singapore
[3] Natl Univ Singapore, Saw Swee Hock Sch Publ Hlth, Singapore, Singapore
[4] Natl Canc Ctr Singapore, Div Med Oncol, Singapore, Singapore
[5] Natl Univ Singapore Hosp, Univ Surg Cluster, Dept Surg, Singapore, Singapore
[6] Natl Canc Ctr Singapore, Div Radiat Oncol, Singapore, Singapore
[7] Genome Inst Singapore, 60 Biopolis St,Genome 02-01, Singapore 138672, Singapore
关键词
Breast cancer; Family history; Loss -of -function variants; Polygenic risk scores; Screening; POLYGENIC RISK; SCREENING MAMMOGRAPHY; PREDICTION MODELS; FAMILY-HISTORY; OLDER WOMEN; VALIDATION; DENSITY; SUSCEPTIBILITY; PROBABILITIES; INDIVIDUALS;
D O I
10.1016/j.gim.2023.100917
中图分类号
Q3 [遗传学];
学科分类号
071007 ; 090102 ;
摘要
Purpose: The benefit of using individual risk prediction tools to identify high-risk individuals for breast cancer (BC) screening is uncertain, despite the personalized approach of risk-based screening. Methods: We studied the overlap of predicted high-risk individuals among 246,142 women enrolled in the UK Biobank. Risk predictors assessed include the Gail model (Gail), BC family history (FH, binary), BC polygenic risk score (PRS), and presence of loss-of-function (LoF) variants in BC predisposition genes. Youden J-index was used to select optimal thresholds for defining high-risk. Results: In total, 147,399 were considered at high risk for developing BC within the next 2 years by at least 1 of the 4 risk prediction tools examined (Gail2-year > 0.5%: 47%, PRS2-yea r > 0.7%: 30%, FH: 6%, and LoF: 1%); 92,851 (38%) were flagged by only 1 risk predictor. The overlap between individuals flagged as high-risk because of genetic (PRS) and Gail model risk factors was 30%. The best-performing combinatorial model comprises a union of high-risk women identified by PRS, FH, and, LoF (AUC2-year [95% CI]: 62.2 [60.8 to 63.6]). Assigning individual weights to each risk prediction tool increased discriminatory ability. Conclusion: Risk-based BC screening may require a multipronged approach that includes PRS, predisposition genes, FH, and other recognized risk factors. & COPY; 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
引用
收藏
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Cancer prevention and screening practices among women at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer after genetic counseling in the community setting
    Morgan, Debra
    Sylvester, Heather
    Lucas, F. Lee
    Miesfeldt, Susan
    FAMILIAL CANCER, 2009, 8 (04) : 277 - 287
  • [42] Genetic variation in the Hippo pathway and breast cancer risk in women of African ancestry
    Wang, Shengfeng
    Huo, Dezheng
    Ogundiran, Temidayo O.
    Ojengbede, Oladosu
    Zheng, Wei
    Nathanson, Katherine L.
    Nemesure, Barbara
    Ambs, Stefan
    Olopade, Olufunmilayo I.
    Zheng, Yonglan
    MOLECULAR CARCINOGENESIS, 2018, 57 (10) : 1311 - 1318
  • [43] Polygenic prediction of breast cancer: comparison of genetic predictors and implications for risk stratification
    Lall, Kristi
    Lepamets, Maarja
    Palover, Marili
    Esko, Tonu
    Metspalu, Andres
    Tonisson, Neeme
    Padrik, Peeter
    Magi, Reedik
    Fischer, Krista
    BMC CANCER, 2019, 19 (1)
  • [44] Magnetic resonance imaging screening in women at genetic risk of breast cancer: imaging and analysis protocol for the UK multicentre study
    Brown, J
    Buckley, D
    Coulthard, A
    Dixon, AK
    Dixon, JM
    Easton, DF
    Eeles, RA
    Evans, DGR
    Gilbert, FG
    Graves, M
    Hayes, C
    Jenkins, JPR
    Jones, AP
    Keevil, SF
    Leach, MO
    Liney, GP
    Moss, SM
    Padhani, AR
    Parker, GJM
    Pointon, LJ
    Ponder, BAJ
    Redpath, TW
    Sloane, JP
    Turnbull, LW
    Walker, LG
    Warren, RML
    MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 2000, 18 (07) : 765 - 776
  • [45] Polygenic prediction of breast cancer: comparison of genetic predictors and implications for risk stratification
    Kristi Läll
    Maarja Lepamets
    Marili Palover
    Tõnu Esko
    Andres Metspalu
    Neeme Tõnisson
    Peeter Padrik
    Reedik Mägi
    Krista Fischer
    BMC Cancer, 19
  • [46] Healthy lifestyles, genetic modifiers, and colorectal cancer risk: a prospective cohort study in the UK Biobank
    Choi, Jungyoon
    Jia, Guochong
    Wen, Wanqing
    Shu, Xiao-Ou
    Zheng, Wei
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION, 2021, 113 (04) : 810 - 820
  • [47] Guidelines for Genetic Risk Assessment of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer: Early Disagreements and Low Utilization
    Levy, Douglas E.
    Garber, Judy E.
    Shields, Alexandra E.
    JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2009, 24 (07) : 822 - 828
  • [48] The local environment and germline genetic variation predict cancer risk in the UK Biobank prospective cohort
    Felici, Alessio
    Peduzzi, Giulia
    Giorgolo, Francesca
    Spinelli, Andrea
    Calderisi, Marco
    Monreale, Anna
    Farinella, Riccardo
    Pellungrini, Roberto
    Canzian, Federico
    Campa, Daniele
    ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH, 2024, 241
  • [49] Family history of breast cancer: what do women understand and recall about their genetic risk?
    Watson, M
    Duvivier, V
    Walsh, MW
    Ashley, S
    Davidson, J
    Papaikonomou, M
    Murday, V
    Sacks, N
    Eeles, R
    JOURNAL OF MEDICAL GENETICS, 1998, 35 (09) : 731 - 738
  • [50] The assessment of genetic risk of breast cancer: a set of GP guidelines
    de Bock, GH
    Vlieland, TPMV
    Hageman, GCHA
    Oosterwijk, JC
    Springer, MP
    Kievit, J
    FAMILY PRACTICE, 1999, 16 (01) : 71 - 77