The added value of genetic information in colorectal cancer risk prediction models: development and evaluation in the UK Biobank prospective cohort study

Colorectal cancer risk mapping through Bayesian networks

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Only about 14% of eligible EU citizens finally participate in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs despite it being the third most common type of cancer worldwide. The development of CRC risk models can enable predictions to be embedded in decision-support tools facilitating CRC screening and treatment recommendations. This paper develops a predictive model that aids in characterizing CRC risk groups and assessing the influence of a variety of risk factors on the population.

METHODS

A CRC Bayesian Network is learnt by aggregating extensive expert knowledge and data from an observational study and making use of structure learning algorithms to model the relations between variables. The network is then parametrised to characterize these relations in terms of local probability distributions at each of the nodes. It is finally used to predict the risks of developing CRC together with the uncertainty around such predictions.

RESULTS

A graphical CRC risk mapping tool is developed from the model and used to segment the population into risk subgroups according to variables of interest. Furthermore, the network provides insights on the predictive influence of modifiable risk factors such as alcohol consumption and smoking, and medical conditions such as diabetes or hypertension linked to lifestyles that potentially have an impact on an increased risk of developing CRC.

CONCLUSION

CRC is most commonly developed in older individuals. However, some modifiable behavioral factors seem to have a strong predictive influence on its potential risk of development. Modeling these effects facilitates identifying risk groups and targeting influential variables which are subsequently helpful in the design of screening and treatment programs.

Colorectal Cancer Risk Assessment and Precision Approaches to Screening: Brave New World or Worlds Apart?

Current colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations take a "one-size-fits-all" approach using age as the major criterion to initiate screening. Precision screening that incorporates factors beyond age to risk stratify individuals could improve on current approaches and optimally use available resources with benefits for patients, providers, and health care systems. Prediction models could identify high-risk groups who would benefit from more intensive screening, while low-risk groups could be recommended less intensive screening incorporating noninvasive screening modalities. In addition to age, prediction models incorporate well-established risk factors such as genetics (eg, family CRC history, germline, and polygenic risk scores), lifestyle (eg, smoking, alcohol, diet, and physical inactivity), sex, and race and ethnicity among others. Although several risk prediction models have been validated, few have been systematically studied for risk-adapted population CRC screening. In order to envisage clinical implementation of precision screening in the future, it will be critical to develop reliable and accurate prediction models that apply to all individuals in a population; prospectively study risk-adapted CRC screening on the population level; garner acceptance from patients and providers; and assess feasibility, resources, cost, and cost-effectiveness of these new paradigms. This review evaluates the current state of risk prediction modeling and provides a roadmap for future implementation of precision CRC screening.

Validation of a Genetic-Enhanced Risk Prediction Model for Colorectal Cancer in a Large Community-Based Cohort

BACKGROUND

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) which summarize individuals' genetic risk profile may enhance targeted colorectal cancer screening. A critical step towards clinical implementation is rigorous external validations in large community-based cohorts. This study externally validated a PRS-enhanced colorectal cancer risk model comprising 140 known colorectal cancer loci to provide a comprehensive assessment on prediction performance.

METHODS

The model was developed using 20,338 individuals and externally validated in a community-based cohort (n = 85,221). We validated predicted 5-year absolute colorectal cancer risk, including calibration using expected-to-observed case ratios (E/O) and calibration plots, and discriminatory accuracy using time-dependent AUC. The PRS-related improvement in AUC, sensitivity and specificity were assessed in individuals of age 45 to 74 years (screening-eligible age group) and 40 to 49 years with no endoscopy history (younger-age group).

RESULTS

In European-ancestral individuals, the predicted 5-year risk calibrated well [E/O = 1.01; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.91-1.13] and had high discriminatory accuracy (AUC = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.71-0.76). Adding the PRS to a model with age, sex, family and endoscopy history improved the 5-year AUC by 0.06 (P < 0.001) and 0.14 (P = 0.05) in the screening-eligible age and younger-age groups, respectively. Using a risk-threshold of 5-year SEER colorectal cancer incidence rate at age 50 years, adding the PRS had a similar sensitivity but improved the specificity by 11% (P < 0.001) in the screening-eligible age group. In the younger-age group it improved the sensitivity by 27% (P = 0.04) with similar specificity.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed PRS-enhanced model provides a well-calibrated 5-year colorectal cancer risk prediction and improves discriminatory accuracy in the external cohort.

IMPACT

The proposed model has potential utility in risk-stratified colorectal cancer prevention.

UK Biobank: a globally important resource for cancer research

UK Biobank is a large-scale prospective study with deep phenotyping and genomic data. Its open-access policy allows researchers worldwide, from academia or industry, to perform health research in the public interest. Between 2006 and 2010, the study recruited 502,000 adults aged 40-69 years from the general population of the United Kingdom. At enrolment, participants provided information on a wide range of factors, physical measurements were taken, and biological samples (blood, urine and saliva) were collected for long-term storage. Participants have now been followed up for over a decade with more than 52,000 incident cancer cases recorded. The study continues to be enhanced with repeat assessments, web-based questionnaires, multi-modal imaging, and conversion of the stored biological samples to genomic and other '-omic' data. The study has already demonstrated its value in enabling research into the determinants of cancer, and future planned enhancements will make the resource even more valuable to cancer researchers. Over 26,000 researchers worldwide are currently using the data, performing a wide range of cancer research. UK Biobank is uniquely placed to transform our understanding of the causes of cancer development and progression, and drive improvements in cancer treatment and prevention over the coming decades.

Developing and validating polygenic risk scores for colorectal cancer risk prediction in East Asians

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.

Polygenic risk prediction models for colorectal cancer: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Risk prediction models incorporating single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) could lead to individualized prevention of colorectal cancer (CRC). However, the added value of incorporating SNPs into models with only traditional risk factors is still not clear. Hence, our primary aim was to summarize literature on risk prediction models including genetic variants for CRC, while our secondary aim was to evaluate the improvement of discriminatory accuracy when adding SNPs to a prediction model with only traditional risk factors.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review on prediction models incorporating multiple SNPs for CRC risk prediction. We tested whether a significant trend in the increase of Area Under Curve (AUC) according to the number of SNPs could be observed, and estimated the correlation between AUC improvement and number of SNPs. We estimated pooled AUC improvement for SNP-enhanced models compared with non-SNP-enhanced models using random effects meta-analysis, and conducted meta-regression to investigate the association of specific factors with AUC improvement.

RESULTS

We included 33 studies, 78.79% using genetic risk scores to combine genetic data. We found no significant trend in AUC improvement according to the number of SNPs (p for trend = 0.774), and no correlation between the number of SNPs and AUC improvement (p = 0.695). Pooled AUC improvement was 0.040 (95% CI: 0.035, 0.045), and the number of cases in the study and the AUC of the starting model were inversely associated with AUC improvement obtained when adding SNPs to a prediction model. In addition, models constructed in Asian individuals achieved better AUC improvement with the incorporation of SNPs compared with those developed among individuals of European ancestry.

CONCLUSIONS

Though not conclusive, our results provide insights on factors influencing discriminatory accuracy of SNP-enhanced models. Genetic variants might be useful to inform stratified CRC screening in the future, but further research is needed.

Harmonising the human biobanking consent process: an Irish experience

Biobanks are repositories of human biological samples and data. They are an important component of clinical research in many disease areas and often represent the first step toward innovative treatments. For biobanks to operate, researchers need human participants to give their samples and associated health data. In Ireland, research participants must provide their freely given informed consent for their samples and data to be taken and used for research purposes. Biobank staff are responsible for communicating the relevant information to participants prior to obtaining their consent, and this communication process is supported by the Participant Information Leaflets and Informed Consent Form (PI/ICFs). PILs/ICFs should be concise, intelligible, and contain relevant information. While not a substitute for layperson and research staff discussions, PILs and ICFs ensure that a layperson has enough information to make an informed choice to participate or not. However, PILs/ICFs are often lengthy, contain technical language and can be complicated and onerous for a layperson to read. The introduction of the General Data Protection Regulation and the related Irish Health Research Regulation presented additional challenges to the Irish biobank community. In May 2019, the National Biobanking Working Group (NBWG) was established in Ireland. It consists of members from diverse research backgrounds located in universities, hospitals and research centres across Ireland and a public/patient partner. The NBWG aimed to develop a suite of resources for health research biobanks via robust and meaningful patient engagement, which are accessible, General Data Protection Regulation/Health Research Regulation-compliant and could be used nationally, including a PIL/ICF template. This open letter describes the process whereby this national biobank PIL/ICF template was produced. The development of this template included review by the Patient Voice in Cancer Research, led by Professor Amanda McCann at University College Dublin and the Health Research Data Protection Network.

Harmonising the human biobanking consent process: an Irish experience

Biobanks are repositories of human biological samples and data. They are an important component of clinical research in many disease areas and often represent the first step toward innovative treatments. For biobanks to operate, researchers need human participants to give their samples and associated health data. In Ireland, research participants must provide their freely given informed consent for their samples and data to be taken and used for research purposes. Biobank staff are responsible for communicating the relevant information to participants prior to obtaining their consent, and this communication process is supported by documentation in the form of Participant Information Leaflets and Informed Consent Forms (PILs/ICFs). PILs/ICFs should be concise, intelligible, and contain relevant information. While not a substitute for layperson and research staff discussions, PILs and ICFs ensure that a layperson has enough information to make an informed choice to participate or not. However, PILs/ICFs are often lengthy, contain technical language and can be complicated and onerous for a layperson to read. The introduction of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the related Irish Health Research Regulation (HRR) presented additional challenges to the Irish biobank community. In May 2019, the National Biobanking Working Group (NBWG) was established in Ireland. It consists of members from diverse research backgrounds located in universities, hospitals and research centres across Ireland and a public/patient partner. The NBWG aimed to develop a suite of resources for health research biobanks via robust and meaningful patient engagement, which are accessible, GDPR/HRR-compliant and could be used nationally, including a PIL/ICF template. This open letter describes the process whereby this national biobank PIL/ICF template was produced. The development of this template included review by the Patient Voice in Cancer Research, led by Professor Amanda McCann at University College Dublin and the Health Research Data Protection Network.

Harmonising the human biobanking consent process: an Irish experience

Biobanks are repositories of human biological samples and data. They are an important component of clinical research in many disease areas and often represent the first step toward innovative treatments. For biobanks to operate, researchers need human participants to give their samples and associated health data. In Ireland, research participants must provide their freely given informed consent for their samples and data to be taken and used for research purposes. Biobank staff are responsible for communicating the relevant information to participants prior to obtaining their consent, and this communication process is supported by documentation in the form of Participant Information Leaflets and Informed Consent Forms (PILs/ICFs). PILs/ICFs should be concise, intelligible, and contain relevant information. While not a substitute for layperson and research staff discussions, PILs and ICFs ensure that a layperson has enough information to make an informed choice to participate or not. However, PILs/ICFs are often lengthy, contain technical language and can be complicated and onerous for a layperson to read. The introduction of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the related Irish Health Research Regulation (HRR) presented additional challenges to the Irish biobank community. In May 2019, the National Biobanking Working Group (NBWG) was established in Ireland. It consists of members from diverse research backgrounds located in universities, hospitals and research centres across Ireland and a public/patient partner. The NBWG aimed to develop a suite of resources for health research biobanks via robust and meaningful patient engagement, which are accessible, GDPR/HRR-compliant and could be used nationally, including a PIL/ICF template. This open letter describes the process whereby this national biobank PIL/ICF template was produced. The development of this template included review by the Patient Voice in Cancer Research, led by Professor Amanda McCann at University College Dublin and the Health Research Data Protection Network.

Prediction of colorectal cancer risk based on profiling with common genetic variants

Increasing numbers of common genetic variants associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) have been identified. Our study aimed to determine whether risk prediction based on common genetic variants might enable stratification for CRC risk. Meta-analysis of 11 genome-wide association studies comprising 16 871 cases and 26 328 controls was performed to capture CRC susceptibility variants. Genetic prediction models with several candidate polygenic risk scores (PRSs) were generated from Scottish CRC case-control studies (6478 cases and 11 043 controls) and the score with the best performance was then tested in UK Biobank (UKBB) (4800 cases and 20 287 controls). A weighted PRS of 116 CRC single nucleotide polymorphisms (wPRS116 ) was found with the best predictive performance, reporting a c-statistics of 0.60 and an odds ratio (OR) of 1.46 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.41-1.50, per SD increase) in Scottish data set. The predictive performance of this wPRS116 was consistently validated in UKBB data set with c-statistics of 0.61 and an OR of 1.49 (95% CI = 1.44-1.54, per SD increase). Modeling the levels of PRS with age and sex in the general UK population shows that employing genetic risk profiling can achieve a moderate degree of risk discrimination that could be helpful to identify a subpopulation with higher CRC risk due to genetic susceptibility.

A risk-stratified approach to colorectal cancer prevention and diagnosis

Population screening and endoscopic surveillance are used widely to prevent the development of and death from colorectal cancer (CRC). However, CRC remains a major cause of cancer mortality and the increasing burden of endoscopic investigations threatens to overwhelm some health services. This Perspective describes the rationale for and approach to improved risk stratification and decision-making for CRC prevention and diagnosis. Limitations of current approaches will be discussed using the UK as an example of the challenges faced by a particular health-care system, followed by discussion of novel risk biomarker utilization. We explore how risk stratification will be advantageous to current health-care providers and users, enabling more efficient use of limited colonoscopy resources. We discuss risk stratification in the setting of population screening as well as the surveillance of high-risk groups and investigation of symptomatic patients. We also address challenges in the development and validation of risk stratification tools and identify key research priorities.

Pan-cancer analysis demonstrates that integrating polygenic risk scores with modifiable risk factors improves risk prediction

Cancer risk is determined by a complex interplay of environmental and heritable factors. Polygenic risk scores (PRS) provide a personalized genetic susceptibility profile that may be leveraged for disease prediction. Using data from the UK Biobank (413,753 individuals; 22,755 incident cancer cases), we quantify the added predictive value of integrating cancer-specific PRS with family history and modifiable risk factors for 16 cancers. We show that incorporating PRS measurably improves prediction accuracy for most cancers, but the magnitude of this improvement varies substantially. We also demonstrate that stratifying on levels of PRS identifies significantly divergent 5-year risk trajectories after accounting for family history and modifiable risk factors. At the population level, the top 20% of the PRS distribution accounts for 4.0% to 30.3% of incident cancer cases, exceeding the impact of many lifestyle-related factors. In summary, this study illustrates the potential for improving cancer risk assessment by integrating genetic risk scores.

Genome-wide Modeling of Polygenic Risk Score in Colorectal Cancer Risk

Accurate colorectal cancer (CRC) risk prediction models are critical for identifying individuals at low and high risk of developing CRC, as they can then be offered targeted screening and interventions to address their risks of developing disease (if they are in a high-risk group) and avoid unnecessary screening and interventions (if they are in a low-risk group). As it is likely that thousands of genetic variants contribute to CRC risk, it is clinically important to investigate whether these genetic variants can be used jointly for CRC risk prediction. In this paper, we derived and compared different approaches to generating predictive polygenic risk scores (PRS) from genome-wide association studies (GWASs) including 55,105 CRC-affected case subjects and 65,079 control subjects of European ancestry. We built the PRS in three ways, using (1) 140 previously identified and validated CRC loci; (2) SNP selection based on linkage disequilibrium (LD) clumping followed by machine-learning approaches; and (3) LDpred, a Bayesian approach for genome-wide risk prediction. We tested the PRS in an independent cohort of 101,987 individuals with 1,699 CRC-affected case subjects. The discriminatory accuracy, calculated by the age- and sex-adjusted area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC), was highest for the LDpred-derived PRS (AUC = 0.654) including nearly 1.2 M genetic variants (the proportion of causal genetic variants for CRC assumed to be 0.003), whereas the PRS of the 140 known variants identified from GWASs had the lowest AUC (AUC = 0.629). Based on the LDpred-derived PRS, we are able to identify 30% of individuals without a family history as having risk for CRC similar to those with a family history of CRC, whereas the PRS based on known GWAS variants identified only top 10% as having a similar relative risk. About 90% of these individuals have no family history and would have been considered average risk under current screening guidelines, but might benefit from earlier screening. The developed PRS offers a way for risk-stratified CRC screening and other targeted interventions.

The emerging field of polygenic risk scores and perspective for use in clinical care

Genetic testing is used widely for diagnostic, carrier and predictive testing in monogenic diseases. Until recently, there were no genetic testing options available for multifactorial complex diseases like heart disease, diabetes and cancer. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have been invaluable in identifying single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with increased or decreased risk for hundreds of complex disorders. For a given disease, SNPs can be combined to generate a cumulative estimation of risk known as a polygenic risk score (PRS). After years of research, PRSs are increasingly used in clinical settings. In this article, we will review the literature on how both genome-wide and restricted PRSs are developed and the relative merit of each. The validation and evaluation of PRSs will also be discussed, including the recognition that PRS validity is intrinsically linked to the methodological and analytical approach of the foundation GWAS together with the ethnic characteristics of that cohort. Specifically, population differences may affect imputation accuracy, risk magnitude and direction. Even as PRSs are being introduced into clinical practice, there is a push to combine them with clinical and demographic risk factors to develop a holistic disease risk. The existing evidence regarding the clinical utility of PRSs is considered across four different domains: informing population screening programs, guiding therapeutic interventions, refining risk for families at high risk, and facilitating diagnosis and predicting prognostic outcomes. The evidence for clinical utility in relation to five well-studied disorders is summarized. The potential ethical, legal and social implications are also highlighted.

External Validation of Risk Prediction Models Incorporating Common Genetic Variants for Incident Colorectal Cancer Using UK Biobank

The aim of this study was to compare and externally validate risk scores developed to predict incident colorectal cancer that include common genetic variants (SNPs), with or without established lifestyle/environmental (questionnaire-based/classical/phenotypic) risk factors. We externally validated 23 risk models from a previous systematic review in 443,888 participants ages 37 to 73 from the UK Biobank cohort who had 6-year prospective follow-up, no prior history of colorectal cancer, and data for incidence of colorectal cancer through linkage to national cancer registries. There were 2,679 (0.6%) cases of incident colorectal cancer. We assessed model discrimination using the area under the operating characteristic curve (AUC) and relative risk calibration. The AUC of models including only SNPs increased with the number of included SNPs and was similar in men and women: the model by Huyghe with 120 SNPs had the highest AUC of 0.62 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.59-0.64] in women and 0.64 (95% CI, 0.61-0.66) in men. Adding phenotypic risk factors without age improved discrimination in men but not in women. Adding phenotypic risk factors and age increased discrimination in all cases (P < 0.05), with the best performing models including SNPs, phenotypic risk factors, and age having AUCs between 0.64 and 0.67 in women and 0.67 and 0.71 in men. Relative risk calibration varied substantially across the models. Among middle-aged people in the UK, existing polygenic risk scores discriminate moderately well between those who do and do not develop colorectal cancer over 6 years. Consideration should be given to exploring the feasibility of incorporating genetic and lifestyle/environmental information in any future stratified colorectal cancer screening program.

The advantages of UK Biobank's open-access strategy for health research

Ready access to health research studies is becoming more important as researchers, and their funders, seek to maximize the opportunities for scientific innovation and health improvements. Large-scale population-based prospective studies are particularly useful for multidisciplinary research into the causes, treatment and prevention of many different diseases. UK Biobank has been established as an open-access resource for public health research, with the intention of making the data as widely available as possible in an equitable and transparent manner. Access to UK Biobank's unique breadth of phenotypic and genetic data has attracted researchers worldwide from across academia and industry. As a consequence, it has enabled scientists to perform world-leading collaborative research. Moreover, open access to an already deeply characterized cohort has encouraged both public and private sector investment in further enhancements to make UK Biobank an unparalleled resource for public health research and an exemplar for the development of open-access approaches for other studies.

Risk Prediction Models for Colorectal Cancer Incorporating Common Genetic Variants: A Systematic Review

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.