MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2986907937 · doi:10.1182/blood-2019-126088

Association between a Polygenic Risk Score for Multiple Myeloma Risk and Overall Survival

2019· article· en· W2986907937 sur OpenAlexaff
Alyssa Clay‐Gilmour, Michelle A.T. Hildebrandt, Yan W. Asmann, Elizabeth E. Brown, John J. Spinelli, Graham G. Giles, Parveen Bhatti, Wendy Cozen, Dennis P. Robinson, Daniel R. O’Brien, S. Vincent Rajkumar, Shulan Tian, Sonja I. Berndt, Stephen J. Chanock, Mitchell J. Machiela, Aaron D. Norman, Jason P. Sinnwell, Xifeng Wu, Rosalie Waller, Roger L. Milne, Susan L. Slager, Shaji Kumar, Nicola J. Camp, Elad Ziv, Celine M. Vachon

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2019
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Établissements canadiensUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésGenome-wide association studySingle-nucleotide polymorphismImputation (statistics)Internal medicineHaplotypeOncologyGenetic associationMedicineMultiple myelomaBiologyGeneticsGenotypeGeneMissing data

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) conducted in populations of European ancestry (EA) have identified and confirmed 23 germline susceptibility loci for multiple myeloma (MM). The effect sizes of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) at these loci are small, therefore combining them into a single summary measure, known as a polygenic risk score (PRS), may provide a more meaningful risk factor. We have previously shown a PRS comprised of the 23 SNPs for MM contributes to increased risk of MM, with a 2.7-fold increase for highest vs. lowest PRS quintiles. Whether the MM-PRS is also associated with overall survival (OS) in MM cases has not been evaluated. We examined the association between MM-PRS and OS in two EA studies. Methods The first study consisted of 2,179 EA MM cases from ten studies included in the Multiple Myeloma Working Group within the International Lymphoma Consortium (InterLymph). Cases were diagnosed between 1970 and 2015 and genotyped using multiple platforms (Oncoarray, Affymetrix, Human660W-quad Beadchip, and Illumina arrays); 885 cases also had stage [based on International Staging System (ISS)] available. Each of the GWAS was subjected to rigorous standard quality control independently (prior to imputation via the Michigan imputation server based on the Haplotype Reference Consortium (HRC). The second study consisted of 515 newly diagnosed EA MM cases from CoMMpass (Relating Clinical Outcomes in Multiple Myeloma to Personal Assessment of Genetic Profile), diagnosed from 2011-2013, who had whole genome sequencing (WGS) performed on germline DNA. The WGS data was used to call common germline genetic variants through the Mayo Clinic bioinformatics pipeline. Briefly, genetic variants were detected with GenomeGPS, aligned to the hg19 reference genome, called using the GATK (V3.6) Haplotype Caller, and merged for multiple-sample joint calling. To reduce the false positive variants, variant quality score recalibration (VQSR) was applied for both SNPs and INDELs. After quality control, 458 EA samples remained. Follow-up was available for both studies and consisted of time from MM diagnosis date until death or date of last known follow-up. The PRS was constructed from the 23 MM SNPs using the published per allele odds ratio associated with MM risk. The published log odds ratios for each SNP were multiplied by the number of risk alleles (0, 1, 2) for the corresponding SNP, and summed, resulting in a unique score per person. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess the association between PRS with MM OS considering two models: 1) adjusted for age, sex, study and 2) additional adjustment by stage (ISS). Hazard ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated. The PRS was evaluated both as a continuous variable, per standard deviation (SD), and as a categorical variable (quintiles). Results MM cases (N=2,179) in the InterLymph study were 59% male and 41% female and the median age was 61.0 years (26-90 years). Median follow-up time was 57.2 months (1.0-509.0 months) with 868 reported deaths. MM cases with stage information available consisted of 20% stage I (n=178), 53% stage II (n=466), and 27% stage III (n=241). No association was observed between PRS and OS in MM patients regardless of adjustment for stage (continuous PRS (HR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.83-1.28, P=0.80) or by quintile PRS (p>0.05)) (Table). The CoMMpass EA MM cases (n=458) had similar distributions for sex (61% male and 39% females) but were slightly older 65 years (27-93 years) and had shorter follow-up time (median=39.75 months (0.13-77.2)) with 117 deaths. Stage was available for 96% of CoMMpass cases including 36% stage I (n=159), 33% stage II (n=146), and 31% stage III (n=134). We also observed no association of PRS and OS in the CoMMpass study (HR=1.02, 95% CI: 0.72 -1.46, P= 0.89), adjusted for age, sex, and stage (Table). Discussion A PRS score for MM risk is not associated with OS for MM cases in two EA populations. Given that prior studies have shown association of genetic variation with MM survival, efforts to identify additional loci associated with OS or MM specific survival are warranted. Future studies should also consider germline variants impact on molecular subtypes, specific therapies, and outcomes. Disclosures Kumar: Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,004
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,008

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0000,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,023
Tête enseignante GPT0,280
Écart entre enseignants0,257 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2019
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments→Travaux en français237 207→