4.8 Article

Assessing Lung Cancer Absolute Risk Trajectory Based on a Polygenic Risk Model

期刊

CANCER RESEARCH
卷 81, 期 6, 页码 1607-1615

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-20-1237

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. UK Biobank Resource [23261]
  2. FIS-FEDER/Spain [FIS-01/310, FIS-PI03-0365, FIS-07-BI060604]
  3. FICYT/Asturias grant [FICYT PB02-67, FICYT IB09133]
  4. University Institute of Oncology (IUOPA) of the University of Oviedo
  5. Ciber de Epidemiologia y Salud Publica. CIBERESP, SPAIN
  6. NCI, NIH [U01-CA063673, UM1-CA167462, U01-CA167462]
  7. Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation
  8. NIH (NCI) [CA092824, CA090578, CA074386, 5U01CA209414]
  9. NIH [CA164973, CA033619, CA63464, CA148127, UL1TR000117, P30 CA177558, U19 CA203654]
  10. Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute [020214]
  11. Ontario Institute of Cancer
  12. Alan Brown Chair
  13. Lusi Wong Programs at the Princess Margaret Hospital Foundation
  14. Norwegian Cancer Society
  15. Norwegian Research Council
  16. James & Esther King Biomedical Research Program [09KN-15]
  17. NIH Specialized Programs of Research Excellence (SPORE) Grant [P50 CA119997]
  18. Cancer Center Support Grant (CCSG) at the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, an NCIdesignated Comprehensive Cancer Center [P30-CA76292]
  19. Vanderbilt CTSA grant from NCATS/NIH [UL1TR000445]
  20. Chief Physician Johan Boserup and Lise Boserup Fund
  21. Danish Medical Research Council
  22. Herlev Hospital
  23. National Center for Research Resources (NCRR), a component of the NIH [P20RR018787]
  24. Department of Defense (Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command Program) [10153006 (W81XWH-11-10781)]
  25. CIHR Foundation Grant [FDN 167273]
  26. Canada Research Chair
  27. Cancer Care Ontario Chair Award
  28. [1S10RR025141-01]
  29. [K07CA172294]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research suggests that an individual's genetic background may play a role in risk stratification for lung cancer and optimizing LDCT screening.
Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death globally. An improved risk stratification strategy can increase efficiency of low-dose CT (LDCT) screening. Here we assessed whether individual's genetic background has clinical utility for risk stratification in the context of LDCT screening. On the basis of 13,119 patients with lung cancer and 10,008 controls with European ancestry in the International Lung Cancer Consortium, we constructed a polygenic risk score (PRS) via 10-fold cross-validation with regularized penalized regression. The performance of risk model integrating PRS, including calibration and ability to discriminate, was assessed using UK Biobank data (N = 335,931). Absolute risk was estimated on the basis of age-specific lung cancer incidence and all-cause mortality as competing risk. To evaluate its potential clinical utility, the PRS distribution was simulated in the National Lung Screening Trial (N = 50,772 participants). The lung cancer ORs for individuals at the top decile of the PRS distribution versus those at bottom 10% was 2.39 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.92-3.00; P = 1.80 x 10(-14)] in the validation set (P-trend = 5.26 x 10(-20)). The OR per SD of PRS increase was 1.26 (95% CI = 1.20-1.32; P = 9.69 x 10(-23)) for overall lung cancer risk in the validation set. When considering absolute risks, individuals at different PRS deciles showed differential trajectories of 5-year and cumulative absolute risk. The age reaching the LDCT screening recommendation threshold can vary by 4 to 8 years, depending on the individual's genetic background, smoking status, and family history. Collectively, these results suggest that individual's genetic background may inform the optimal lung cancer LDCT screening strategy. Significance: Three large-scale datasets reveal that, after accounting for risk factors, an individual's genetics can affect their lung cancer risk trajectory, thus may inform the optimal timing for LDCT screening.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据