MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2593642799 · doi:10.1093/jnci/djw302

Evaluation of Polygenic Risk Scores for Breast and Ovarian Cancer Risk Prediction in BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers

2016· article· en· W2593642799 on OpenAlexafffund
Karoline Kuchenbaecker, Lesley McGuffog, Daniel Barrowdale, Andrew Lee, Penny Soucy, Joe Dennis, Susan M. Domchek, Mark E. Robson, Amanda B. Spurdle, Susan J. Ramus, Nasim Mavaddat, Mary Beth Terry, Susan L. Neuhausen, Rita K. Schmutzler, Jacques Simard, Paul D.P. Pharoah, Kenneth Offit, Fergus J. Couch, Georgia Chenevix‐Trench, Douglas F. Easton, Antonis C Antoniou

Bibliographic record

VenueJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBRCA gene mutations in cancer
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCentre hospitalier universitaire de Québec
FundersJonsson Comprehensive Cancer CenterNational Center for Advancing Translational Scienceslékařská fakulta Univerzity KarlovyNational Institutes of HealthNational Cancer InstituteLiga Portuguesa Contra o CancroMinistero dello Sviluppo EconomicoMedical Research CouncilUppsala UniversitetDeutsche KrebshilfeSahlgrenska UniversitetssjukhusetUniversitair Medisch Centrum GroningenInstitut National Du CancerLeids Universitair Medisch CentrumKWF KankerbestrijdingLietuvos Mokslo TarybaUniversity of California, San FranciscoUniversiteit GentPeter MacCallum Cancer CentreLunds UniversitetNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekMinistero della SaluteNorway GrantsGeneralitat de CatalunyaAmerican Cancer SocietyFonds Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekCancer Center, University of KansasCancerfondenPomorski Uniwersytet Medyczny W SzczecinieVrije Universiteit AmsterdamRijksuniversiteit GroningenMaastricht Universitair Medisch CentrumMinistério da Ciência, Tecnologia e InovaçãoUniversiteit LeidenIstituto Toscano TumoriCancer Association of South AfricaUniversidade do PortoNational Breast Cancer FoundationNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchCancer Research UKCanadian Breast Cancer Research AllianceHungarian Scientific Research FundFrancis Crick InstituteCedars-Sinai Medical CenterIsrael Cancer AssociationInstitut Català de la SalutUniversity of PennsylvaniaRadboud UniversiteitMinistère du Développement Économique, de l’Innovation et de l’ExportationDavid F. and Margaret T. Grohne Family FoundationBreast Cancer Research FoundationUniverzita Karlova v PrazeClalit Health ServicesDeutsches KrebsforschungszentrumErasmus Universitair Medisch Centrum RotterdamEuropean CommissionIstituto Oncologico VenetoRoyal Marsden NHS Foundation TrustHelsingin YliopistoNRG OncologyUSC Norris Comprehensive Cancer CenterMemorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer CenterDr. Ralph and Marian Falk Medical Research TrustKansas Bioscience AuthorityGeorgetown UniversitySusan G. Komen for the CureCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGeneral Secretariat for Research and TechnologyBeth Israel Deaconess Medical CenterFundació Institut de Recerca Hospital Universitari Vall d’HebronUniversity of Hong KongEuropean Regional Development FundJess and Mildred Fisher Center for Familial Cancer ResearchInstituto de Salud Carlos IIIOhio State UniversityCancer AustraliaHáskóli ÍslandsLandspítali HáskólasjúkrahúsOvarian Cancer Research FundNational Health and Medical Research CouncilJewish General HospitalFisher Center for Alzheimer's Research FoundationEuropean Social FundUniversity of Chicago
KeywordsPolygenic risk scoreOvarian cancerOncologyBreast cancerMutationMedicineInternal medicineCancerBiologyGeneticsGeneGenotypeSingle-nucleotide polymorphism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified 94 common single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with breast cancer (BC) risk and 18 associated with ovarian cancer (OC) risk. Several of these are also associated with risk of BC or OC for women who carry a pathogenic mutation in the high-risk BC and OC genes BRCA1 or BRCA2. The combined effects of these variants on BC or OC risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers have not yet been assessed while their clinical management could benefit from improved personalized risk estimates. Methods: We constructed polygenic risk scores (PRS) using BC and OC susceptibility SNPs identified through population-based GWAS: for BC (overall, estrogen receptor [ER]-positive, and ER-negative) and for OC. Using data from 15 252 female BRCA1 and 8211 BRCA2 carriers, the association of each PRS with BC or OC risk was evaluated using a weighted cohort approach, with time to diagnosis as the outcome and estimation of the hazard ratios (HRs) per standard deviation increase in the PRS. Results: The PRS for ER-negative BC displayed the strongest association with BC risk in BRCA1 carriers (HR = 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.23 to 1.31, P = 8.2×10 -53 ). In BRCA2 carriers, the strongest association with BC risk was seen for the overall BC PRS (HR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.17 to 1.28, P = 7.2×10 -20 ). The OC PRS was strongly associated with OC risk for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. These translate to differences in absolute risks (more than 10% in each case) between the top and bottom deciles of the PRS distribution; for example, the OC risk was 6% by age 80 years for BRCA2 carriers at the 10th percentile of the OC PRS compared with 19% risk for those at the 90th percentile of PRS. Conclusions: BC and OC PRS are predictive of cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. Incorporation of the PRS into risk prediction models has promise to better inform decisions on cancer risk management.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations348
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJNCI Journal of the National Cancer InstituteSame topicBRCA gene mutations in cancerFrench-language works237,207