Validation of a genetic risk score for Arkansas women of color

A Systematic Review and Critical Assessment of Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Tools Incorporating a Polygenic Risk Score for the General Population

Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the form of a polygenic risk score (PRS) have emerged as a promising factor that could improve the predictive performance of breast cancer (BC) risk prediction tools. This study aims to appraise and critically assess the current evidence on these tools. Studies were identified using Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library up to November 2022 and were included if they described the development and/ or validation of a BC risk prediction model using a PRS for women of the general population and if they reported a measure of predictive performance. We identified 37 articles, of which 29 combined genetic and non-genetic risk factors using seven different risk prediction tools. Most models (55.0%) were developed on populations from European ancestry and performed better than those developed on populations from other ancestry groups. Regardless of the number of SNPs in each PRS, models combining a PRS with genetic and non-genetic risk factors generally had better discriminatory accuracy (AUC from 0.52 to 0.77) than those using a PRS alone (AUC from 0.48 to 0.68). The overall risk of bias was considered low in most studies. BC risk prediction tools combining a PRS with genetic and non-genetic risk factors provided better discriminative accuracy than either used alone. Further studies are needed to cross-compare their clinical utility and readiness for implementation in public health practices.

Inequities in referrals to a breast cancer risk assessment and prevention clinic: a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

Inequitable access to personalized breast cancer screening and prevention may compound racial and ethnic disparities in outcomes. The Breast Cancer Personalized Risk Assessment, Education and Prevention (B-PREP) program, located within the Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH) Comprehensive Breast Health Center (BHC), provides care to patients at high risk for developing breast cancer. We sought to characterize the differences between BWH primary care patients referred specifically to B-PREP for risk evaluation and those referred to the BHC for benign breast conditions. Through interviews with primary care clinicians, we sought to explore contributors to potentially inequitable B-PREP referral patterns.

METHODS

We used electronic health record data and the B-PREP clinical database to identify patients referred by primary care clinicians to the BHC or B-PREP between 2017 and 2020. We examined associations with likelihood of referral to B-PREP for risk assessment. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with nine primary care clinicians from six clinics to explore referral patterns.

RESULTS

Of 1789 patients, 78.0% were referred for benign breast conditions, and 21.5% for risk assessment. In multivariable analyses, Black individuals were less likely to be referred for risk than for benign conditions (OR 0.38, 95% CI:0.23-0.63) as were those with Medicaid/Medicare (OR 0.72, 95% CI:0.53-0.98; OR 0.52, 95% CI:0.27-0.99) and those whose preferred language was not English (OR 0.26, 95% CI:0.12-0.57). Interviewed clinicians described inconsistent approaches to risk assessment and variable B-PREP awareness.

CONCLUSIONS

In this single-site evaluation, among individuals referred by primary care clinicians for specialized breast care, Black, publicly-insured patients, and those whose preferred language was not English were less likely to be referred for risk assessment. Larger studies are needed to confirm these findings. Interventions to standardize breast cancer risk assessment in primary care may improve equity.

Role of Polygenic Risk Score in Cancer Precision Medicine of Non-European Populations: A Systematic Review

The development of new screening methods and diagnostic tests for traits, common diseases, and cancer is linked to the advent of precision genomic medicine, in which health care is individually adjusted based on a person’s lifestyle, environmental influences, and genetic variants. Based on genome-wide association study (GWAS) analysis, rapid and continuing progress in the discovery of relevant single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for traits or complex diseases has increased interest in the potential application of genetic risk models for routine health practice. The polygenic risk score (PRS) estimates an individual’s genetic risk of a trait or disease, calculated by employing a weighted sum of allele counts combined with non-genetic variables. However, 98.38% of PRS records held in public databases relate to the European population. Therefore, PRSs for multiethnic populations are urgently needed. We performed a systematic review to discuss the role of polygenic risk scores in advancing precision medicine for different cancer types in multiethnic non-European populations.

Communicating polygenic risk scores in the familial breast cancer clinic

OBJECTIVE

To describe the communication of polygenic risk scores (PRS) in the familial breast cancer setting.

METHODS

Consultations between genetic healthcare providers (GHP) and female patients who received their PRS for breast cancer risk were recorded (n = 65). GHPs included genetic counselors (n = 8) and medical practitioners (n = 5) (i.e. clinical geneticists and oncologists). A content analysis was conducted and logistic regression was used to assess differences in communication behaviors between genetic counselors (n = 8) and medical practitioners (n = 5).

RESULTS

Of the 65 patients, 31 (47.7 %) had a personal history of breast cancer, 18 of whom received an increased PRS (relative risk >1.2). 25/34 unaffected patients received an increased PRS. Consultations were primarily clinician-driven and focused on biomedical information. There was little difference between the biomedical information provided by genetic counselors and medical practitioners. However, genetic counselors were significantly more likely to utilize strategies to build patient rapport and counseling techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings provide one of the earliest reports on how breast cancer PRSs are communicated to women.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Key messages for communicating PRSs were identified, namely: discussing differences between polygenic and monogenic testing, the multifactorial nature of breast cancer risk, polygenic inheritance and current limitation of PRSs.

Breast Cancer Risk Prediction in Korean Women: Review and Perspectives on Personalized Breast Cancer Screening

Due to an increasing proportion of older individuals and the adoption of a westernized lifestyle, the incidence rate of breast cancer is expected to rapidly increase within the next 10 years in Korea. The National Cancer Screening Program (NCSP) of Korea recommends biennial breast cancer screening through mammography for women aged 40-69 years old and according to individual risk and preference for women above 70 years old. There is an ongoing debate on how to most effectively screen for breast cancer, with many proponents of personalized screening, or screening according to individual risk, for women under 70 years old as well. However, to accurately stratify women into risk categories, further study using more refined personalized characteristics, including potentially incorporating a polygenic risk score (PRS), may be needed. While most breast cancer risk prediction models were developed in Western countries, the Korean Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (KoBCRAT) was developed in 2013, and several other risk models have been developed for Asian women specifically. This paper reviews these models compared to commonly used models developed using primarily Caucasian women, namely, the modified Gail, Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, Rosner and Colditz, and Tyrer-Cuzick models. In addition, this paper reviews studies in which PRS is included in risk prediction in Asian women. Finally, this paper discusses and explores strategies toward development and implementation of personalized screening for breast cancer in Korea.

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.

Polygenic Scores to Assess Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk: Clinical Perspectives and Basic Implications

An individual's susceptibility to atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is influenced by numerous clinical and lifestyle factors, motivating the multifaceted approaches currently endorsed for primary and secondary cardiovascular disease prevention. With growing knowledge of the genetic basis of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease-in particular, coronary artery disease-and its contribution to disease pathogenesis, there is increased interest in understanding the potential clinical utility of a genetic predictor that might further refine the assessment and management of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk. Rapid scientific and technological advances have enabled widespread genotyping efforts and dynamic research in the field of coronary artery disease genetic risk prediction. In this review, we describe how genomic analyses of coronary artery disease have been leveraged to create polygenic risk scores. We then discuss evaluations of the clinical utility of these scores, pertinent mechanistic insights gleaned, and practical considerations relevant to the implementation of polygenic risk scores in the health care setting.

Clinical applications of polygenic breast cancer risk: a critical review and perspectives of an emerging field

Polygenic factors are estimated to account for an additional 18% of the familial relative risk of breast cancer, with those at the highest level of polygenic risk distribution having a least a twofold increased risk of the disease. Polygenic testing promises to revolutionize health services by providing personalized risk assessments to women at high-risk of breast cancer and within population breast screening programs. However, implementation of polygenic testing needs to be considered in light of its current limitations, such as limited risk prediction for women of non-European ancestry. This article aims to provide a comprehensive review of the evidence for polygenic breast cancer risk, including the discovery of variants associated with breast cancer at the genome-wide level of significance and the use of polygenic risk scores to estimate breast cancer risk. We also review the different applications of this technology including testing of women from high-risk breast cancer families with uninformative genetic testing results, as a moderator of monogenic risk, and for population screening programs. Finally, a potential framework for introducing testing for polygenic risk in familial cancer clinics and the potential challenges with implementing this technology in clinical practice are discussed.

Towards clinical utility of polygenic risk scores

Prediction of disease risk is an essential part of preventative medicine, often guiding clinical management. Risk prediction typically includes risk factors such as age, sex, family history of disease and lifestyle (e.g. smoking status); however, in recent years, there has been increasing interest to include genomic information into risk models. Polygenic risk scores (PRS) aggregate the effects of many genetic variants across the human genome into a single score and have recently been shown to have predictive value for multiple common diseases. In this review, we summarize the potential use cases for seven common diseases (breast cancer, prostate cancer, coronary artery disease, obesity, type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes and Alzheimer’s disease) where PRS has or could have clinical utility. PRS analysis for these diseases frequently revolved around (i) risk prediction performance of a PRS alone and in combination with other non-genetic risk factors, (ii) estimation of lifetime risk trajectories, (iii) the independent information of PRS and family history of disease or monogenic mutations and (iv) estimation of the value of adding a PRS to specific clinical risk prediction scenarios. We summarize open questions regarding PRS usability, ancestry bias and transferability, emphasizing the need for the next wave of studies to focus on the implementation and health-economic value of PRS testing. In conclusion, it is becoming clear that PRS have value in disease risk prediction and there are multiple areas where this may have clinical utility.

Genetic Testing to Guide Risk-Stratified Screens for Breast Cancer

Breast cancer screening modalities and guidelines continue to evolve and are increasingly based on risk factors, including genetic risk and a personal or family history of cancer. Here, we review genetic testing of high-penetrance hereditary breast and ovarian cancer genes, including BRCA1 and BRCA2, for the purpose of identifying high-risk individuals who would benefit from earlier screening and more sensitive methods such as magnetic resonance imaging. We also consider risk-based screening in the general population, including whether every woman should be genetically tested for high-risk genes and the potential use of polygenic risk scores. In addition to enabling early detection, the results of genetic screens of breast cancer susceptibility genes can be utilized to guide decision-making about when to elect prophylactic surgeries that reduce cancer risk and the choice of therapeutic options. Variants of uncertain significance, especially missense variants, are being identified during panel testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. A finding of a variant of uncertain significance does not provide a basis for increased cancer surveillance or prophylactic procedures. Given that variant classification is often challenging, we also consider the role of multifactorial statistical analyses by large consortia and functional tests for this purpose.