Abstract PR10: Development of a comprehensive colorectal cancer risk prediction tool (CRiPT) incorporating known and unknown major genes and polygenes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim: We aimed to develop a comprehensive Colorectal cancer Risk Prediction Tool (CRiPT). To achieve this, it is necessary to incorporate germline mutations in the DNA mismatch repair genes and MUTYH to account for a proportion of the familial aggregation of colorectal cancer. Population prevalence of these mutations and the genetic and environmental causes of the remaining familial aggregation, however, are not known. Methods: We studied the families of 5,744 colorectal cancer cases (probands) recruited from population cancer registries in the USA, Canada and Australia, and screened probands for mutations in the mismatch repair genes MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2, and MUTYH. We fitted modified segregation analysis models to the cancer history of first-degree relatives, conditional on the age at diagnosis of the proband, using the software MENDEL. We determined the genetic model that best explained the familial aggregation of colorectal cancer by estimating the prevalence of mutations in the known susceptibility genes, the prevalence of and hazard ratio for unmeasured high-risk gene mutations, and the variance of the unmeasured polygenic component, using a χ2 goodness-of-fit test. Results: The best fitting model was a mixed dominant model with the polygenic standard deviation varying by age. Under that model, we estimated 1 in 279 of the population carry mutations in the mismatch repair genes (MLH = 1 in 1946, MSH2 = 1 in 2841, MSH6 = 1 in 758, PMS2 = 1 in 714), 1 in 45 carry mutations in MUTYH, and 1 in 504 carry mutations in unknown major gene(s) which are associated with on average a 31-fold increased risk of colorectal cancer. The estimated variance of the polygenic component decreased from 1.8 for age <40 years to 0.7 for age ≥70 years (equivalent to a sibling relative risk of 5.1 and 1.3, respectively). There was good internal consistency in the best fitting model; i.e., predicted and observed numbers were close. Conclusion: CRiPT is a comprehensive prediction model that incorporates both known and unknown major genes and polygenes. CRiPT can provide the probabilities of having a mutation in a DNA mismatch repair gene or MUTYH as well as estimate future risk (e.g., 5-year risk) of developing colorectal cancer. This model is similar to the Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA) that calculates for women the probabilities of carrying a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation and their future risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer based on their family history. Further work will include measured environmental factors and genetic variants to CRiPT, and it will be useful for genetic counselling and targeted colorectal cancer screening in clinical practices. This abstract is also being presented as Poster B04. Citation Format: Aung Ko Win, Mark A. Jenkins, James G. Dowty, Antonis C. Antoniou, Andrew Lee, Yingye Zheng, Noralane M. Lindor, Polly A. Newcomb, John L. Hopper, Robert J. MacInnis. Development of a comprehensive colorectal cancer risk prediction tool (CRiPT) incorporating known and unknown major genes and polygenes. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference: Improving Cancer Risk Prediction for Prevention and Early Detection; Nov 16-19, 2016; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2017;26(5 Suppl):Abstract nr PR10.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".