Hyunje G Cho1, Katherine J Ransohoff1, Lingyao Yang2, Haley Hedlin2, Themistocles Assimes3, Jiali Han4, Marcia Stefanick5, Jean Y Tang1, Kavita Y Sarin6. 1. Department of Dermatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. 2. Quantitative Sciences Unit, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. 3. Department of Medicine (Cardiovascular), Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. 4. Department of Epidemiology, Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health, Melvin and Bren Simon Cancer Center, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana. 5. Stanford Prevention Research Center, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. 6. Department of Dermatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. Electronic address: ksarin@stanford.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with melanoma have been identified though genome-wide association studies. However, the combined impact of these SNPs on melanoma development remains unclear, particularly in postmenopausal women who carry a lower melanoma risk. OBJECTIVE: We examine the contribution of a combined polygenic risk score on melanoma development in postmenopausal women. METHODS: Genetic risk scores were calculated using 21 genome-wide association study-significant SNPs. Their combined effect on melanoma development was evaluated in 19,102 postmenopausal white women in the clinical trial and observational study arms of the Women's Health Initiative dataset. RESULTS: Compared to the tertile of weighted genetic risk score with the lowest genetic risk, the women in the tertile with the highest genetic risk were 1.9 times more likely to develop melanoma (95% confidence interval 1.50-2.42). The incremental change in c-index from adding genetic risk scores to age were 0.075 (95% confidence interval 0.041-0.109) for incident melanoma. LIMITATIONS: Limitations include a lack of information on nevi count, Fitzpatrick skin type, family history of melanoma, and potential reporting and selection bias in the Women's Health Initiative cohort. CONCLUSION: Higher genetic risk is associated with increased melanoma prevalence and incidence in postmenopausal women, but current genetic information may have a limited role in risk prediction when phenotypic information is available.
BACKGROUND: Single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with melanoma have been identified though genome-wide association studies. However, the combined impact of these SNPs on melanoma development remains unclear, particularly in postmenopausal women who carry a lower melanoma risk. OBJECTIVE: We examine the contribution of a combined polygenic risk score on melanoma development in postmenopausal women. METHODS: Genetic risk scores were calculated using 21 genome-wide association study-significant SNPs. Their combined effect on melanoma development was evaluated in 19,102 postmenopausal white women in the clinical trial and observational study arms of the Women's Health Initiative dataset. RESULTS: Compared to the tertile of weighted genetic risk score with the lowest genetic risk, the women in the tertile with the highest genetic risk were 1.9 times more likely to develop melanoma (95% confidence interval 1.50-2.42). The incremental change in c-index from adding genetic risk scores to age were 0.075 (95% confidence interval 0.041-0.109) for incident melanoma. LIMITATIONS: Limitations include a lack of information on nevi count, Fitzpatrick skin type, family history of melanoma, and potential reporting and selection bias in the Women's Health Initiative cohort. CONCLUSION: Higher genetic risk is associated with increased melanoma prevalence and incidence in postmenopausal women, but current genetic information may have a limited role in risk prediction when phenotypic information is available.
Authors: Andrew Bakshi; Mabel Yan; Moeen Riaz; Galina Polekhina; Suzanne G Orchard; Jane Tiller; Rory Wolfe; Amit Joshi; Yin Cao; Aideen M McInerney-Leo; Tatiane Yanes; Monika Janda; H Peter Soyer; Anne E Cust; Matthew H Law; Peter Gibbs; Catriona McLean; Andrew T Chan; John J McNeil; Victoria J Mar; Paul Lacaze Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2021-10-01 Impact factor: 11.816
Authors: Zhuqing Shi; Hongjie Yu; Yishuo Wu; Xiaoling Lin; Quanwa Bao; Haifei Jia; Chelsea Perschon; David Duggan; Brian T Helfand; Siqun L Zheng; Jianfeng Xu Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2019-04-09 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Thomas P Potjer; Tara W J van der Grinten; Inge M M Lakeman; Sander H Bollen; Mar Rodríguez-Girondo; Mark M Iles; Jennifer H Barrett; Lambertus A Kiemeney; Nelleke A Gruis; Christi J van Asperen; Nienke van der Stoep Journal: J Med Genet Date: 2020-09-29 Impact factor: 6.318
Authors: Anne E Cust; Martin Drummond; Peter A Kanetsky; Alisa M Goldstein; Jennifer H Barrett; Stuart MacGregor; Matthew H Law; Mark M Iles; Minh Bui; John L Hopper; Myriam Brossard; Florence Demenais; John C Taylor; Clive Hoggart; Kevin M Brown; Maria Teresa Landi; Julia A Newton-Bishop; Graham J Mann; D Timothy Bishop Journal: J Invest Dermatol Date: 2018-06-08 Impact factor: 8.551
Authors: Isabelle Kaiser; Annette B Pfahlberg; Wolfgang Uter; Markus V Heppt; Marit B Veierød; Olaf Gefeller Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-10-28 Impact factor: 3.390