Search

The evolution of polygenic scores for use in for disease prevention and control compels the development of guidelines to optimize their effectiveness and promote equitable use. Understanding the motivations and barriers to participation in genomics research can assist in drafting these standards. We investigated these in a community-based randomized controlled trial that examined the health behavioral impact of receiving personalized melanoma genomic risk information. We examined participant responses in a baseline questionnaire and conducted interviews post-trial participation. Motivations differed in two ways: (1) by gender, with those identifying as women placing greater importance on learning about their personal risk or familial risk, and how to reduce risk; and (2) by age in relation to learning about personal risk, and fear of developing melanoma. A barrier to participation was distrust in the handling of genomic data. Our findings provide new insights into the motivations for participating in genomics research and highlight the need to better target population subgroups including younger men, which will aid in tailoring recruitment for future genomic studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Personalized polygenic risk information may be used to guide risk-based melanoma prevention and early detection at a population scale, but research on communicating this information is limited. This mixed-methods study aimed to assess the acceptability of a genetic counselor (GC) phone call in communicating polygenic risk information in the Melanoma Genomics Managing Your Risk randomized controlled trial. Participants (n = 509) received personalized melanoma polygenic risk information, an educational booklet on melanoma prevention, and a GC phone call, which was audio-recorded. Participants completed the Genetic Counseling Satisfaction Survey 1-month after receiving their risk information (n = 346). A subgroup took part in a qualitative interview post-study completion (n = 20). Survey data were analyzed descriptively using SPSS, and thematic analysis of the qualitative data was conducted using NVivo 12.0 software. The survey showed a high level of acceptability for the GC phone call (mean satisfaction score overall: 4.3 out of 5, standard deviation (SD): 0.6) with differences according to gender (mean score for women: 4.4, SD: 0.6 vs. men: 4.2, SD: 0.7; p = 0.005), health literacy (lower literacy: 4.1, SD: 0.8; average: 4.3, SD: 0.6; higher: 4.4, SD: 0.6: p = 0.02) and polygenic risk group (low risk: 4.5, SD: 0.5, SD: average: 4.3, SD: 0.7, high: 4.3, SD: 0.7; p = 0.03). During the GC phone calls, the discussion predominately related to the impact of past sun exposure on personal melanoma risk. Together our findings point to the importance of further exploring educational and support needs and preferences for communicating personalized melanoma risk among population subgroups, including diverse literacy levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Precision public health is an emergent field that requires transdisciplinary collaborations and leverages innovative approaches to improve population health. These opportunities have inspired a new generation of precision public health researchers. Despite burgeoning interest in precision public health, there are limited opportunities for researchers to convene and continue the momentum of this field. Methods: The Transdisciplinary Conference for Future Leaders in Precision Public Health was the among the first events to bring together international researchers and practitioners to learn, network, and agenda set for the future of the field. The conference took place virtually on October 14 and 15, 2021. Results: The conference spanned two days and featured a keynote address, speakers from public health disciplines who are international leaders in precision-based research, networking opportunities, a poster session, and research agenda setting activities. Conclusion: The conference was a critical first step to creating a shared international conversation about precision public health, especially among early-stage investigators. This allowed attendees to continue building their individual skills and international collaborations to support the growth of the field of precision public health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Studies suggest that 1-3% of the general population in the United States unknowingly carry a genetic risk factor for a common hereditary disease. Population genetic screening is the process of offering otherwise healthy patients in the general population testing for genomic variants that predispose them to diseases that are clinically actionable, meaning that they can be prevented or mitigated if they are detected early. Population genetic screening may significantly reduce morbidity and mortality from these diseases by informing risk-specific prevention or treatment strategies and facilitating appropriate participation in early detection. To better understand current barriers, facilitators, perceptions, and outcomes related to the implementation of population genetic screening, we conducted a systematic review and searched PubMed, Embase, and Scopus for articles published from date of database inception to May 2020. We included articles that 1) detailed the perspectives of participants in population genetic screening programs and 2) described the barriers, facilitators, perceptions, and outcomes related to population genetic screening programs among patients, healthcare providers, and the public. We excluded articles that 1) focused on direct-to-consumer or risk-based genetic testing and 2) were published before January 2000. Thirty articles met these criteria. Barriers and facilitators to population genetic screening were organized by the Social Ecological Model and further categorized by themes. We found that research in population genetic screening has focused on stakeholder attitudes with all included studies designed to elucidate individuals' perceptions. Additionally, inadequate knowledge and perceived limited clinical utility presented a barrier for healthcare provider uptake. There were very few studies that conducted long-term follow-up and evaluation of population genetic screening. Our findings suggest that these and other factors, such as prescreen counseling and education, may play a role in the adoption and implementation of population genetic screening. Future studies to investigate macro-level determinants, strategies to increase provider buy-in and knowledge, delivery models for prescreen counseling, and long-term outcomes of population genetic screening are needed for the effective design and implementation of such programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Precision public health is an emerging discipline combining principles and frameworks of precision health with the goal of improving population health. The development of research priorities drawing on the strengths of precision and public health is critical to facilitate the growth of the discipline to improve health outcomes. We held an interactive workshop during a virtual conference bringing together early-career researchers across public health disciplines to identify research priorities in precision public health. The workshop participants discussed and voted to identify three priority areas for future research and capacity building including 1) enhancing equity and access to precision public health research and resources, 2) improving tools and metrics for evaluation and 3) applying principles of implementation science to support sustainable practices. Participants also developed future objectives for achieving each priority. Future efforts by working groups will continue the process of identifying, revising, and advancing critical research priorities to grow the impact of precision public health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Background: Previous studies suggest that polygenic risk scores (PRSs) may improve melanoma risk stratification. However, there has been limited independent validation of PRS‐based risk prediction, particularly assessment of calibration (comparing predicted to observed risks). Objectives: To evaluate PRS‐based melanoma risk prediction in prospective UK and Australian cohorts with European ancestry. Methods: We analysed invasive melanoma incidence in the UK Biobank (UKB; n = 395 647, 1651 cases) and a case‐cohort nested within the Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study (MCCS, Australia; n = 4765, 303 cases). Three PRSs were evaluated: 68 single‐nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) at 54 loci from a 2020 meta‐analysis (PRS68), 50 SNPs significant in the 2020 meta‐analysis excluding UKB (PRS50) and 45 SNPs at 21 loci known in 2018 (PRS45). Ten‐year melanoma risks were calculated from population‐level cancer registry data by age group and sex, with and without PRS adjustment. Results: Predicted absolute melanoma risks based on age and sex alone underestimated melanoma incidence in the UKB [ratio of expected/observed cases: E/O = 0·65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0·62–0·68] and MCCS (E/O = 0·63, 95% CI 0·56–0·72). For UKB, calibration was improved by PRS adjustment, with PRS50‐adjusted risks E/O = 0·91, 95% CI 0·87–0·95. The discriminative ability for PRS68‐ and PRS50‐adjusted absolute risks was higher than for risks based on age and sex alone (Δ area under the curve 0·07–0·10, P < 0·0001), and higher than for PRS45‐adjusted risks (Δ area under the curve 0·02–0·04, P < 0·001). Conclusions: A PRS derived from a larger, more diverse meta‐analysis improves risk prediction compared with an earlier PRS, and might help tailor melanoma prevention and early detection strategies to different risk levels. Recalibration of absolute risks may be necessary for application to specific populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) are becoming increasingly available in clinical practice to evaluate cancer risk. However, little is known about health professionals' knowledge, attitudes, and expectations of PRS. An online questionnaire was distributed by relevant health professional organisations predominately in Australia, Canada and the US to evaluate health professionals' knowledge, views and expectations of PRS. Eligible participants were health professionals who provide cancer risk assessments. Results from the questionnaire were analysed descriptively and content analysis was undertaken of free‐text responses. In total, 105 health professionals completed the questionnaire (genetic counsellors 84%; oncologists 6%; clinical geneticists 4%; other 7%). Although responses differed between countries, most participants (61%) had discussed PRS with patients, 20% had ordered a test and 14% had returned test results to a patient. Confidence and knowledge around interpreting PRS were low. Although 69% reported that polygenic testing will certainly or likely influence patient care in the future, most felt unprepared for this. If scaled up to the population, 49% expect that general practitioners would have a primary role in the provision of PRS, supported by genetic health professionals. These findings will inform the development of resources to support health professionals offering polygenic testing, currently and in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is mounting evidence of the benefit of risk‐stratified (risk‐tailored) cancer population screening, when compared to standard approaches. However, shifting towards this approach involves changes to practice that may give rise to implementation challenges. Objectives: To explore the public's potential acceptance of risk‐stratified screening across different cancer types, including reducing screening frequency if at low risk and the use of personal risk information, to inform implementation strategies. Method: Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with 40 public participants; half had received personal genomic risk information and half had not. Participants were prompted to consider different cancers. Data were analysed thematically as one dataset. Results: Themes included the following: (a) a sense of security; (b) tailored screening is common sense; (c) risk and the need to take action; (d) not every cancer is the same; and (e) trust and belief in health messages. Both groups expressed similar views. Participants were broadly supportive of risk‐stratified screening across different cancer types, with strong support for increased screening frequency for high‐risk groups. They were less supportive of reduced screening frequency or no screening for low‐risk groups. Findings suggest the public will be amenable to reducing screening when the test is invasive and uncomfortable; be less opposed to forgo screening if offered the opportunity to screen at some stage; and view visible cancers such as melanoma differently. Conclusions: Approaching distinct cancer types differently, tailoring messages for different audiences and understanding reasons for participating in screening may assist with designing future implementation strategies for risk‐stratified cancer screening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Precision public health is a relatively new field that integrates components of precision medicine, such as human genomics research, with public health concepts to help improve population health. Despite interest in advancing precision public health initiatives using human genomics research, current and future opportunities in this emerging field remain largely undescribed. To that end, we provide examples of promising opportunities and current applications of genomics research within precision public health and outline future directions within five major domains of public health: biostatistics, environmental health, epidemiology, health policy and health services, and social and behavioral science. To further extend applications of genomics within precision public health research, three key cross-cutting challenges will need to be addressed: developing policies that implement precision public health initiatives at multiple levels, improving data integration and developing more rigorous methodologies, and incorporating initiatives that address health equity. Realizing the potential to better integrate human genomics within precision public health will require transdisciplinary efforts that leverage the strengths of both precision medicine and public health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Most subsequent new primary or recurrent melanomas might be self-detected if patients are trained to systematically self-examine their skin and have access to timely medical review (patient-led surveillance). Routinely scheduled clinic visits (clinician-led surveillance) is resource-intensive and has not been shown to improve health outcomes; fewer visits may be possible if patient-led surveillance is shown to be safe and effective. The MEL-SELF trial is a randomised controlled trial comparing patient-led surveillance with clinician-led surveillance in people who have been previously treated for localised melanoma.Methods: Stage 0/I/II melanoma patients (n = 600) from dermatology, surgical, or general practice clinics in NSW Australia, will be randomised (1:1) to the intervention (patient-led surveillance, n = 300) or control (usual care, n = 300). Patients in the intervention will undergo a second randomisation 1:1 to polarised (n = 150) or non-polarised (n = 150) dermatoscope. Patient-led surveillance comprises an educational booklet, skin self-examination (SSE) instructional videos; 3-monthly email/SMS reminders to perform SSE; patient-performed dermoscopy with teledermatologist feedback; clinical review of positive teledermoscopy through fast-tracked unscheduled clinic visits; and routinely scheduled clinic visits following each clinician's usual practice. Clinician-led surveillance comprises an educational booklet and routinely scheduled clinic visits following each clinician's usual practice. The primary outcome, measured at 12 months, is the proportion of participants diagnosed with a subsequent new primary or recurrent melanoma at an unscheduled clinic visit. Secondary outcomes include time from randomisation to diagnosis (of a subsequent new primary or recurrent melanoma and of a new keratinocyte cancer), clinicopathological characteristics of subsequent new primary or recurrent melanomas (including AJCC stage), psychological outcomes, and healthcare use. A nested qualitative study will include interviews with patients and clinicians, and a costing study we will compare costs from a societal perspective. We will compare the technical performance of two different models of dermatoscope (polarised vs non-polarised).Discussion: The findings from this study may inform guidance on evidence-based follow-up care, that maximises early detection of subsequent new primary or recurrent melanoma and patient wellbeing, while minimising costs to patients, health systems, and society.Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12621000176864 . Registered on 18 February 2021. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Genomic risk information, based on common genomic susceptibility variants associated with risk of complex diseases such as cancer, may be incorporated into personalised prevention and screening strategies. We aimed to engage with members of the public, who are important stakeholders in this process, to further inform program development and other implementation outcomes such as acceptability and appropriateness.Methods: Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 30 participants (aged 24-69 years, 50% female) recruited from a pilot trial in which they received personalised genomic risk information for melanoma. We explored participants' views and attitudes towards offering general personal genomic risk information to the broader population. The data were analysed thematically.Results: Two overarching themes relevant to implementation considerations were identified. Firstly, participants' preferences for accepting an offer of genomic risk information were based on family history, disease incidence and the possibility of prevention. Secondly, participants felt that the processes for offering risk information should be based on individual preferences, triaged according to risk and be supported by a health professional trained in genomics.Conclusions: Participants felt that offering personal genomic risk information to the general population to inform prevention and early detection recommendations is acceptable, particularly for common, complex conditions such as cancer. Understanding participants' preferences for receiving genomic risk information will assist with communication strategies and health workforce planning. We anticipate that these findings will contribute to the development of implementation strategies for incorporating genomic risk information into routine clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Melanoma Genomics Managing Your Risk Study is a randomised controlled trial that aims to evaluate the efficacy of providing information on personal genomic risk of melanoma in reducing ultraviolet radiation (UV) exposure, stratified by traditional risk group (low or high phenotypic risk) in the general population. The primary outcome is objectively measured total daily Standard Erythemal Doses at 12 months. Secondary outcomes include UV exposure at specific time periods, self-reported sun protection and skin-examination behaviours, psychosocial outcomes, and ethical considerations surrounding offering genomic testing at a population level. A within-trial and modelled economic evaluation will be undertaken from an Australian health system perspective to assess the cost-effectiveness of the intervention.Objective: To publish the pre-determined statistical analysis plan (SAP) before database lock and the start of analysis.Methods: This SAP describes the data synthesis, analysis principles and statistical procedures for analysing the outcomes from this trial. The SAP was approved after closure of recruitment and before completion of patient follow-up. It outlines the planned primary analyses and a range of subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Health economic outcomes are not included in this plan but will be analysed separately. The SAP will be adhered to for the final data analysis of this trial to avoid potential analysis bias that may arise from knowledge of the outcome data.Results: This SAP is consistent with best practice and should enable transparent reporting.Conclusion: This SAP has been developed for the Melanoma Genomics Managing Your Risk Study and will be followed to ensure high-quality standards of internal validity and to minimise analysis bias.Trial Registration: Prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ID: ACTR N12617000691347 . Registered on 15 May 2017. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Skin cancer risk information based on melanocortin-1 receptor (MC1R) variants could inform prevention and screening recommendations for Hispanics, but limited evidence exists on the impact of MC1R variants in Hispanic populations. We studied Hispanic subjects, predominately of Puerto Rican heritage, from Tampa, Florida, US, and Ponce, PR. Blood or saliva samples were collected by prospective recruitment or retrieved from biobanks for genotyping of MC1R variants and ancestry informative markers. Participant demographic and self-reported phenotypic information was collected via biobank records or questionnaires. We determined associations of MC1R genetic risk categories and phenotypic variables and genetic ancestry. Over half of participants carried MC1R variants known to increase risk of skin cancer, and there was diversity in the observed variants across sample populations. Associations between MC1R genetic risk groups and some pigmentation characteristics were identified. Among Puerto Ricans, the proportion of participants carrying MC1R variants imparting elevated skin cancer risk was consistent across quartiles of European, African, and Native American genetic ancestry. These findings demonstrate that MC1R variants are important for pigmentation characteristics in Hispanics and that carriage of high risk MC1R alleles occurs even among Hispanics with stronger African or Native American genetic ancestry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Implementation of any new medical test, including germline genome sequencing (GS) to inform cancer risk, should take place only when a test is effective, ethically justifiable and acceptable to a population. Little empirical evidence exists on patient views regarding GS for cancer risk. The aim of this study was to elicit opinions on who should be offered GS and who should pay for it. Participants with a probable genetic basis for their cancer (n = 335) and blood relatives (n = 199) were recruited to undergo GS and invited to complete questionnaires at baseline. A subset (n = 40) also participated in qualitative interviews about their views regarding access to GS to detect cancer risk. Our response rate was 92% for questionnaires and 100% for interviews. Participants expressed high enthusiasm overall for access to GS for those with a family history of cancer and anyone who requested testing, but enthusiasm was lower for universal access, if opting out was possible and finances not an issue. Rationales for these views reflected maximising the sound use of resources. Challenges to introducing community screening via GS to limit cancer burden were raised, including the current limits of science and individual ability to cope with uncertain results. Participants undergoing GS supported cancer risk testing for those with a family history of cancer but were concerned about the challenges of designing and implementing a population‐based GS cancer‐screening program. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: As part of a pilot randomised controlled trial examining the impact of personal melanoma genomic risk information on behavioural and psychosocial outcomes, GPs were sent a booklet containing their patient's genomic risk of melanoma. Aim: Using this booklet as an example of genomic risk information that might be offered on a population-level in the future, this study explored GP attitudes towards communicating genomic risk information and resources needed to support this process. Design & setting: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 22 Australian GPs. Method: The interviews were recorded and transcribed, and data were analysed thematically. Results: GPs in this sample believed that communicating genomic risk may become a responsibility within primary care and they recommended a shared decisionmaking approach to guide the testing process. Factors were identified that may influence how and when GPs communicate genomic risk information. GPs view genomics-based risk as one of many disease risk factors and feel that this type of information could be applied in practice in the context of overall risk assessment for diseases for which prevention and early detection strategies are available. They believe it is important to ensure that patients understand their genomic risk and do not experience long-term adverse psychological responses. GPs desire clinical practice guidelines that specify recommendations for genomic risk assessment and patient management, point-of-care resources, and risk prediction tools that include genomic and traditional risk factors. Conclusion: These findings will inform the development of resources for preparing GPs to manage and implement genomic risk information in practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Self‐reported sun exposure is commonly measured using questionnaires or diaries, but there are limited data on their validity, particularly for population subgroups. This research aimed to compare self‐reported sun exposure, measured as (1) habitual time outdoors over the past month on weekends and weekdays and (2) a 4‐day diary measure, against objective measurement of personal ultraviolet radiation using polysulfone film dosimeters. From November 2015 to January 2016, 94 people (22–69 years and living in New South Wales, Australia) completed a questionnaire, 4‐day diary and 4‐day dosimeter measures of overall, weekday and weekend sun exposure. Spearman correlations and Bland–Altman plots were used to measure agreement. The overall weekly correlation was 0.57 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.44, 0.68) between standard erythemal doses (SEDs) measured by dosimeter and time spent outdoors measured by questionnaire, 0.74 (95% CI 0.66–0.81) between dosimeter and diary, and 0.59 (95% CI 0.48–0.68) between questionnaire and diary measures. Validity was lower for younger people and weekend sun exposure. There was strong correlation between dosimeter and sun diary measures and moderate correlation between dosimeter and questionnaire measures. Daily measurement over a longer period may be required to accurately capture weeklong sun exposure in all population subgroups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Communicating personalized genomic risk results for common diseases to the general population as a form of tailored prevention is novel and may require alternative genetic counseling service delivery models. We describe the development and evaluation of a communication protocol for disclosing melanoma genomic risk information to the asymptomatic general population and assess participants’ satisfaction and acceptability. Participants (n = 117) were aged 22-69 years, living in New South Wales, Australia and unselected for family history. They provided a saliva sample and had genomic testing for melanoma for low to moderate penetrant melanoma susceptibility variants in 21 genes. Participants could choose to receive their results from a genetic counselor via telephone, followed by a mailed booklet or to receive their risk result via mailed booklet only with a follow-up call for those at high risk. A follow-up questionnaire was completed by 85% of participants 3-months later. Most participants (80%) elected to receive their result via telephone. Participants were highly satisfied with the delivery of results (mean 3.4 out of 4, standard deviation 0.5), and this did not differ by delivery mode, risk category, age or sex. On follow-up, 75% accurately recalled their risk category, 6% indicated a preference for a different delivery mode, either electronic or face-to-face. The process of disclosing genomic risk results to the general population over the telephone with accompanying written material was feasible and acceptable, and may be useful for communicating polygenic risk for common diseases in the context of increasing demands for genomic testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Personalized genomic risk information has the potential to motivate behaviour change and promote population health, but the success of this will depend upon effective risk communication strategies. Objective: To determine preferences for different graphical and written risk communication formats, and the delivery of genomic risk information including the mode of communication and the role of health professionals. Design: Focus groups, transcribed and analysed thematically. Participants: Thirty‐four participants from the public. Methods: Participants were provided with, and invited to discuss, a hypothetical scenario giving an individual's personalized genomic risk of melanoma displayed in several graphical formats. Results: Participants preferred risk formats that were familiar and easy to understand, such as a ‘double pie chart’ and ‘100 person diagram’ (pictograph). The 100 person diagram was considered persuasive because it humanized and personalized the risk information. People described the pie chart format as resembling bank data and food (such as cake and pizza). Participants thought that email, web‐based platforms and postal mail were viable options for communicating genomic risk information. However, they felt that it was important that a health professional (either a genetic counsellor or ‘informed’ general practitioner) be available for discussion at the time of receiving the risk information, to minimize potential negative emotional responses and misunderstanding. Face‐to‐face or telephone delivery was preferred for delivery of high‐risk results. Conclusions: These public preferences for communication strategies for genomic risk information will help to guide translation of genome‐based knowledge into improved population health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To explore the potential emotional and behavioural impact of providing information on personalised genomic risk to the public, using melanoma as an example, to aid research translation. Methods: We conducted four focus groups in which 34 participants were presented with a hypothetical scenario of an individual's lifetime genomic risk of melanoma (using the term 'genetic risk'). We asked about understanding of genetic risk, who would choose to receive this risk information, potential emotional and behavioural impacts, and other concerns or potential benefits. Data were analysed thematically. Results: Participants thought this risk information could potentially motivate preventive behaviours such as sun protection and related it to screening for other diseases including breast cancer. Factors identified as influencing the decision to receive genetic risk information included education level, children, age and gender. Participants identified potential negative impacts on the recipient such as anxiety and worry, and proposed that this could be mitigated by providing additional explanatory and prevention information, and contact details of a health professional for further discussion. Participants' concerns included workplace and insurance discrimination. Conclusion: Participants recognised the potential for both positive and negative emotional and behavioural impacts related to receiving information on the personalised genomic risk of melanoma. © 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background To improve melanoma early detection, tools to predict personal risk based on genetic information (polygenic risk scores, PRS) have been developed, but require external validation. Methods We analysed invasive melanoma incidence in UK Biobank (UKB; n = 395,647; 1,651 cases) and the Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study (MCCS, Australia; n = 4,765; 303 cases). Three PRS were evaluated: 68 genetic variants (SNPs) at 54 loci from a 2020 meta-analysis (PRS68); 50 SNPs significant in the 2020 meta-analysis excluding UKB (PRS50); 45 SNPs at 21 loci known pre-2020 (PRS45). 10-year melanoma risks were calculated from population-level cancer registry data by age group and sex, with and without PRS adjustment. Results All PRS were strongly associated with melanoma incidence, including after adjustment for age, sex, ethnicity, and ease of tanning. Predicted absolute melanoma risks based on age and sex alone underestimated melanoma incidence in UKB (ratio expected/observed cases E/O=0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.62-0.68) and MCCS (E/O=0.65, 0.57-0.73). For UKB, this was reduced by PRS-adjustment, e.g. PRS50-adjusted risks E/O=0.91 (0.87-0.95). Discriminative ability for PRS68- and PRS50-adjusted absolute risks was higher than for risks based on age and sex alone (deltaAUC 0.07-0.1, p < 0.0001), and higher than for PRS45-adjusted risks (deltaAUC 0.02-0.04, p < 0.001). Conclusions A PRS derived from a larger, more diverse meta-analysis improves melanoma risk prediction compared to an earlier PRS. Re-calibration of absolute risks may be necessary for application to specific populations. Key messages A genetic score can improve prediction of melanoma risk and might help tailor melanoma prevention and early detection strategies to different risk levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]