4.5 Review

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

Journal

BREAST CANCER RESEARCH
Volume 22, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13058-020-01260-3

Keywords

Breast cancer; Polygenic risk score; Risk prediction

Categories

Funding

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) [1133049]
  2. National Breast Cancer Foundation [1133049]
  3. Translational Cancer Research Institute PhD Top-up Scholarship
  4. NHMRC Senior Research Fellowship Level B [1078523]
  5. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia [1133049] Funding Source: NHMRC

Ask authors/readers for more resources

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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available