Literature DB >> 33482857

Assessing the clinical utility of genetic risk scores for targeted cancer screening.

Carly A Conran1, Zhuqing Shi2, William Kyle Resurreccion2, Rong Na3, Brian T Helfand2, Elena Genova2, Siqun Lilly Zheng2, Charles B Brendler2, Jianfeng Xu2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Genome-wide association studies have identified thousands of disease-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). A subset of these SNPs may be additively combined to generate genetic risk scores (GRSs) that confer risk for a specific disease. Although the clinical validity of GRSs to predict risk of specific diseases has been well established, there is still a great need to determine their clinical utility by applying GRSs in primary care for cancer risk assessment and targeted intervention.
METHODS: This clinical study involved 281 primary care patients without a personal history of breast, prostate or colorectal cancer who were 40-70 years old. DNA was obtained from a pre-existing biobank at NorthShore University HealthSystem. GRSs for colorectal cancer and breast or prostate cancer were calculated and shared with participants through their primary care provider. Additional data was gathered using questionnaires as well as electronic medical record information. A t-test or Chi-square test was applied for comparison of demographic and key clinical variables among different groups.
RESULTS: The median age of the 281 participants was 58 years and the majority were female (66.6%). One hundred one (36.9%) participants received 2 low risk scores, 99 (35.2%) received 1 low risk and 1 average risk score, 37 (13.2%) received 1 low risk and 1 high risk score, 23 (8.2%) received 2 average risk scores, 21 (7.5%) received 1 average risk and 1 high risk score, and no one received 2 high risk scores. Before receiving GRSs, younger patients and women reported significantly more worry about risk of developing cancer. After receiving GRSs, those who received at least one high GRS reported significantly more worry about developing cancer. There were no significant differences found between gender, age, or GRS with regards to participants' reported optimism about their future health neither before nor after receiving GRS results.
CONCLUSIONS: Genetic risk scores that quantify an individual's risk of developing breast, prostate and colorectal cancers as compared with a race-defined population average risk have potential clinical utility as a tool for risk stratification and to guide cancer screening in a primary care setting.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast cancer; Cancer screening; Colorectal cancer; Genetic risk score; Prostate cancer; Single nucleotide polymorphism; Translational genomics

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33482857      PMCID: PMC7821544          DOI: 10.1186/s12967-020-02699-w

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Transl Med        ISSN: 1479-5876            Impact factor:   5.531


  35 in total

1.  Development and validation of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire.

Authors:  T J Meyer; M L Miller; R L Metzger; T D Borkovec
Journal:  Behav Res Ther       Date:  1990

2.  NCCN Guidelines Insights: Colorectal Cancer Screening, Version 1.2018.

Authors:  Dawn Provenzale; Samir Gupta; Dennis J Ahnen; Arnold J Markowitz; Daniel C Chung; Robert J Mayer; Scott E Regenbogen; Amie M Blanco; Travis Bray; Gregory Cooper; Dayna S Early; James M Ford; Francis M Giardiello; William Grady; Michael J Hall; Amy L Halverson; Stanley R Hamilton; Heather Hampel; Jason B Klapman; David W Larson; Audrey J Lazenby; Xavier Llor; Patrick M Lynch; June Mikkelson; Reid M Ness; Thomas P Slavin; Shajanpeter Sugandha; Jennifer M Weiss; Mary A Dwyer; Ndiya Ogba
Journal:  J Natl Compr Canc Netw       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 11.908

3.  The Cancer Worry Scale Revised for Breast Cancer Genetic Counseling.

Authors:  Anita Caruso; Cristina Vigna; Paola Gremigni
Journal:  Cancer Nurs       Date:  2018 Jul/Aug       Impact factor: 2.592

Review 4.  Role of Genetic Testing for Inherited Prostate Cancer Risk: Philadelphia Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2017.

Authors:  Veda N Giri; Karen E Knudsen; William K Kelly; Wassim Abida; Gerald L Andriole; Chris H Bangma; Justin E Bekelman; Mitchell C Benson; Amie Blanco; Arthur Burnett; William J Catalona; Kathleen A Cooney; Matthew Cooperberg; David E Crawford; Robert B Den; Adam P Dicker; Scott Eggener; Neil Fleshner; Matthew L Freedman; Freddie C Hamdy; Jean Hoffman-Censits; Mark D Hurwitz; Colette Hyatt; William B Isaacs; Christopher J Kane; Philip Kantoff; R Jeffrey Karnes; Lawrence I Karsh; Eric A Klein; Daniel W Lin; Kevin R Loughlin; Grace Lu-Yao; S Bruce Malkowicz; Mark J Mann; James R Mark; Peter A McCue; Martin M Miner; Todd Morgan; Judd W Moul; Ronald E Myers; Sarah M Nielsen; Elias Obeid; Christian P Pavlovich; Stephen C Peiper; David F Penson; Daniel Petrylak; Curtis A Pettaway; Robert Pilarski; Peter A Pinto; Wendy Poage; Ganesh V Raj; Timothy R Rebbeck; Mark E Robson; Matt T Rosenberg; Howard Sandler; Oliver Sartor; Edward Schaeffer; Gordon F Schwartz; Mark S Shahin; Neal D Shore; Brian Shuch; Howard R Soule; Scott A Tomlins; Edouard J Trabulsi; Robert Uzzo; Donald J Vander Griend; Patrick C Walsh; Carol J Weil; Richard Wender; Leonard G Gomella
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2017-12-13       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Reminders of cancer risk and pain catastrophizing: relationships with cancer worry and perceived risk in women with a first-degree relative with breast cancer.

Authors:  Colette A Whitney; Caroline S Dorfman; Rebecca A Shelby; Francis J Keefe; Vicky Gandhi; Tamara J Somers
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 2.375

6.  Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually.

Authors:  M H Gail; L A Brinton; D P Byar; D K Corle; S B Green; C Schairer; J J Mulvihill
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1989-12-20       Impact factor: 13.506

7.  Prostate cancer specific survival in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial.

Authors:  Paul F Pinsky; Amanda Black; Howard L Parnes; Robert Grubb; E David Crawford; Anthony Miller; Douglas Reding; Gerald Andriole
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol       Date:  2012-09-19       Impact factor: 2.984

8.  Family history of prostate cancer and prostate cancer risk in the Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta-Carotene Cancer Prevention (ATBC) Study.

Authors:  Jiyoung Ahn; Roxana Moslehi; Stephanie J Weinstein; Kirk Snyder; Jarmo Virtamo; Demetrius Albanes
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2008-09-01       Impact factor: 7.396

9.  Effects of Family History on Relative and Absolute Risks for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Victorine H Roos; Carolina Mangas-Sanjuan; Mar Rodriguez-Girondo; Lucia Medina-Prado; Ewout W Steyerberg; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Evelien Dekker; Rodrigo Jover; Monique E van Leerdam
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2019-09-13       Impact factor: 11.382

10.  Lower Relative Contribution of Positive Family History to Colorectal Cancer Risk with Increasing Age: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 9.28 Million Individuals.

Authors:  Martin C S Wong; C H Chan; Jiayan Lin; Jason L W Huang; Junjie Huang; Yuan Fang; Wilson W L Cheung; C P Yu; John C T Wong; Gary Tse; Justin C Y Wu; Francis K L Chan
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2018-06-05       Impact factor: 10.864

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  A scoping review of risk-stratified bowel screening: current evidence, future directions.

Authors:  J M Cairns; S Greenley; O Bamidele; D Weller
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2022-03-20       Impact factor: 2.532

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.