M R Roberts1,2, M M Asgari1,2, A E Toland3. 1. Department of Dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, U.S.A. 2. Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare Institute, Boston, MA, U.S.A. 3. Department of Cancer Biology and Genetics, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ohio State University, 998 Biomedical Research Tower, 460 W 12th Ave, Columbus, OH, 43210, U.S.A.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified thousands of susceptibility variants, although most have been associated with small individual risk estimates that offer little predictive value. However, combining multiple variants into polygenic risk scores (PRS) may be more informative. Multiple studies have developed PRS composed of GWAS-identified variants for cutaneous cancers. This review highlights data from these studies. OBJECTIVES: To review published GWAS and PRS studies for melanoma, cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) and basal cell carcinoma (BCC), and discuss their potential clinical utility. METHODS: We searched PubMed and the National Human Genome Research Institute-European Bioinformatics Institute GWAS catalogue to identify relevant studies. RESULTS: Results from 21 GWAS (11 melanoma, 3 cSCC, 7 BCC) and 11 PRS studies are summarized. Six loci in pigmentation genes overlap between these three cancers (ASIP/RALY, IRF4, MC1R, OCA2, SLC45A2 and TYR). Additional loci overlap for cSCC/BCC and BCC/melanoma, but no other loci are shared between cSCC and melanoma. PRS for melanoma show roughly two-to-threefold increases in risk and modest improvements in risk prediction (2-7% increases). PRS are associated with twofold and threefold increases in risk of cSCC and BCC, respectively, with small improvements (2% increase) in predictive ability. CONCLUSIONS: Existing data indicate that PRS may offer small, but potentially meaningful, improvements to risk prediction. Additional research is needed to clarify the potential utility of PRS in cutaneous carcinomas. Clinical translation will require well-powered validation studies incorporating known risk factors to evaluate PRS as tools for screening. What's already known about this topic? Over 50 susceptibility loci for melanoma, basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) have been identified in genome-wide association studies (GWAS). Polygenic risk scores (PRS) using variants identified from GWAS have also been developed for melanoma, BCC and cSCC, and investigated with respect to clinical risk prediction. What does this study add? This review provides an overview of GWAS findings and the potential clinical utility of PRS for melanoma, BCC and cSCC.
BACKGROUND: Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified thousands of susceptibility variants, although most have been associated with small individual risk estimates that offer little predictive value. However, combining multiple variants into polygenic risk scores (PRS) may be more informative. Multiple studies have developed PRS composed of GWAS-identified variants for cutaneous cancers. This review highlights data from these studies. OBJECTIVES: To review published GWAS and PRS studies for melanoma, cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) and basal cell carcinoma (BCC), and discuss their potential clinical utility. METHODS: We searched PubMed and the National Human Genome Research Institute-European Bioinformatics Institute GWAS catalogue to identify relevant studies. RESULTS: Results from 21 GWAS (11 melanoma, 3 cSCC, 7 BCC) and 11 PRS studies are summarized. Six loci in pigmentation genes overlap between these three cancers (ASIP/RALY, IRF4, MC1R, OCA2, SLC45A2 and TYR). Additional loci overlap for cSCC/BCC and BCC/melanoma, but no other loci are shared between cSCC and melanoma. PRS for melanoma show roughly two-to-threefold increases in risk and modest improvements in risk prediction (2-7% increases). PRS are associated with twofold and threefold increases in risk of cSCC and BCC, respectively, with small improvements (2% increase) in predictive ability. CONCLUSIONS: Existing data indicate that PRS may offer small, but potentially meaningful, improvements to risk prediction. Additional research is needed to clarify the potential utility of PRS in cutaneous carcinomas. Clinical translation will require well-powered validation studies incorporating known risk factors to evaluate PRS as tools for screening. What's already known about this topic? Over 50 susceptibility loci for melanoma, basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) have been identified in genome-wide association studies (GWAS). Polygenic risk scores (PRS) using variants identified from GWAS have also been developed for melanoma, BCC and cSCC, and investigated with respect to clinical risk prediction. What does this study add? This review provides an overview of GWAS findings and the potential clinical utility of PRS for melanoma, BCC and cSCC.
Authors: Peter Kraft; Sholom Wacholder; Marilyn C Cornelis; Frank B Hu; Richard B Hayes; Gilles Thomas; Robert Hoover; David J Hunter; Stephen Chanock Journal: Nat Rev Genet Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 53.242
Authors: Fangyi Gu; Ting-Huei Chen; Ruth M Pfeiffer; Maria Concetta Fargnoli; Donato Calista; Paola Ghiorzo; Ketty Peris; Susana Puig; Chiara Menin; Arcangela De Nicolo; Monica Rodolfo; Cristina Pellegrini; Lorenza Pastorino; Evangelos Evangelou; Tongwu Zhang; Xing Hua; Curt T DellaValle; D Timothy Bishop; Stuart MacGregor; Mark I Iles; Matthew H Law; Anne Cust; Kevin M Brown; Alexander J Stratigos; Eduardo Nagore; Stephen Chanock; Jianxin Shi; Melanoma Meta-Analysis Consortium; MelaNostrum Consortium; Maria Teresa Landi Journal: Hum Mol Genet Date: 2018-12-01 Impact factor: 6.150
Authors: Michael Lattanzi; Yesung Lee; Danny Simpson; Una Moran; Farbod Darvishian; Randie H Kim; Eva Hernando; David Polsky; Doug Hanniford; Richard Shapiro; Russell Berman; Anna C Pavlick; Melissa A Wilson; Tomas Kirchhoff; Jeffrey S Weber; Judy Zhong; Iman Osman Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Robert P Carroll; Helen M Ramsay; Anthony A Fryer; Carmel M Hawley; David L Nicol; Paul N Harden Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Stuart Macgregor; Grant W Montgomery; Jimmy Z Liu; Zhen Zhen Zhao; Anjali K Henders; Mitchell Stark; Helen Schmid; Elizabeth A Holland; David L Duffy; Mingfeng Zhang; Jodie N Painter; Dale R Nyholt; Judith A Maskiell; Jodie Jetann; Megan Ferguson; Anne E Cust; Mark A Jenkins; David C Whiteman; Håkan Olsson; Susana Puig; Giovanna Bianchi-Scarrà; Johan Hansson; Florence Demenais; Maria Teresa Landi; Tadeusz Dębniak; Rona Mackie; Esther Azizi; Brigitte Bressac-de Paillerets; Alisa M Goldstein; Peter A Kanetsky; Nelleke A Gruis; David E Elder; Julia A Newton-Bishop; D Timothy Bishop; Mark M Iles; Per Helsing; Christopher I Amos; Qingyi Wei; Li-E Wang; Jeffrey E Lee; Abrar A Qureshi; Richard F Kefford; Graham G Giles; Bruce K Armstrong; Joanne F Aitken; Jiali Han; John L Hopper; Jeffrey M Trent; Kevin M Brown; Nicholas G Martin; Graham J Mann; Nicholas K Hayward Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2011-10-09 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Simon N Stacey; Patrick Sulem; Daniel F Gudbjartsson; Aslaug Jonasdottir; Gudmar Thorleifsson; Sigurjon A Gudjonsson; Gisli Masson; Julius Gudmundsson; Bardur Sigurgeirsson; Kristrun R Benediktsdottir; Kristin Thorisdottir; Rafn Ragnarsson; Victoria Fuentelsaz; Cristina Corredera; Matilde Grasa; Dolores Planelles; Onofre Sanmartin; Peter Rudnai; Eugene Gurzau; Kvetoslava Koppova; Kari Hemminki; Bjørn A Nexø; Anne Tjønneland; Kim Overvad; Hrefna Johannsdottir; Hafdis T Helgadottir; Unnur Thorsteinsdottir; Augustine Kong; Ulla Vogel; Rajiv Kumar; Eduardo Nagore; José I Mayordomo; Thorunn Rafnar; Jon H Olafsson; Kari Stefansson Journal: Hum Mol Genet Date: 2014-01-08 Impact factor: 5.121
Authors: Katherine J Ransohoff; Wenting Wu; Hyunje G Cho; Harvind C Chahal; Yuan Lin; Hong-Ji Dai; Christopher I Amos; Jeffrey E Lee; Jean Y Tang; David A Hinds; Jiali Han; Qingyi Wei; Kavita Y Sarin Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2017-03-14
Authors: Adam H Buchanan; Kandamurugu Manickam; Michelle N Meyer; Jennifer K Wagner; Miranda L G Hallquist; Janet L Williams; Alanna Kulchak Rahm; Marc S Williams; Zong-Ming E Chen; Chaitali K Shah; Tullika K Garg; Amanda L Lazzeri; Marci L B Schwartz; D'Andra M Lindbuchler; Audrey L Fan; Rosemary Leeming; Pedro O Servano; Ashlee L Smith; Victor G Vogel; Noura S Abul-Husn; Frederick E Dewey; Matthew S Lebo; Heather M Mason-Suares; Marylyn D Ritchie; F Daniel Davis; David J Carey; David T Feinberg; W Andrew Faucett; David H Ledbetter; Michael F Murray Journal: Genet Med Date: 2017-10-26 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Gareth J Hollands; David P French; Simon J Griffin; A Toby Prevost; Stephen Sutton; Sarah King; Theresa M Marteau Journal: BMJ Date: 2016-03-15
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: Sami Megdiche; Salvatore Mastrangelo; Mohamed Ben Hamouda; Johannes A Lenstra; Elena Ciani Journal: Front Genet Date: 2019-10-25 Impact factor: 4.599
Authors: Evadnie Rampersaud; Guolian Kang; Lance E Palmer; Sara R Rashkin; Shuoguo Wang; Wenjian Bi; Nicole M Alberts; Doralina Anghelescu; Martha Barton; Kirby Birch; Nidal Boulos; Amanda M Brandow; Russell John Brooke; Ti-Cheng Chang; Wenan Chen; Yong Cheng; Juan Ding; John Easton; Jason R Hodges; Celeste K Kanne; Shawn Levy; Heather Mulder; Ashwin P Patel; Latika Puri; Celeste Rosencrance; Michael Rusch; Yadav Sapkota; Edgar Sioson; Akshay Sharma; Xing Tang; Andrew Thrasher; Winfred Wang; Yu Yao; Yutaka Yasui; Donald Yergeau; Jane S Hankins; Vivien A Sheehan; James R Downing; Jeremie H Estepp; Jinghui Zhang; Michael DeBaun; Gang Wu; Mitchell J Weiss Journal: Blood Adv Date: 2021-07-27
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