Back to Search Start Over

Additional SNPs improve risk stratification of a polygenic hazard score for prostate cancer

Authors :
Karunamuni, Roshan A
Huynh-Le, Minh-Phuong
Fan, Chun C
Thompson, Wesley
Eeles, Rosalind A
Kote-Jarai, Zsofia
Muir, Kenneth
Lophatananon, Artitaya
UKGPCS collaborators
Schleutker, Johanna
Pashayan, Nora
Batra, Jyotsna
APCB BioResource (Australian Prostate Cancer BioResource)
Grönberg, Henrik
Walsh, Eleanor I
Turner, Emma L
Lane, Athene
Martin, Richard M
Neal, David E
Donovan, Jenny L
Hamdy, Freddie C
Nordestgaard, Børge G
Tangen, Catherine M
MacInnis, Robert J
Wolk, Alicja
Albanes, Demetrius
Haiman, Christopher A
Travis, Ruth C
Stanford, Janet L
Mucci, Lorelei A
West, Catharine ML
Nielsen, Sune F
Kibel, Adam S
Wiklund, Fredrik
Cussenot, Olivier
Berndt, Sonja I
Koutros, Stella
Sørensen, Karina Dalsgaard
Cybulski, Cezary
Grindedal, Eli Marie
Park, Jong Y
Ingles, Sue A
Maier, Christiane
Hamilton, Robert J
Rosenstein, Barry S
Vega, Ana
IMPACT Study Steering Committee and Collaborators
Kogevinas, Manolis
Penney, Kathryn L
Teixeira, Manuel R
Brenner, Hermann
John, Esther M
Kaneva, Radka
Logothetis, Christopher J
Neuhausen, Susan L
Razack, Azad
Newcomb, Lisa F
Canary PASS Investigators
Gamulin, Marija
Usmani, Nawaid
Claessens, Frank
Gago-Dominguez, Manuela
Townsend, Paul A
Roobol, Monique J
Zheng, Wei
Profile Study Steering Committee
Mills, Ian G
Andreassen, Ole A
Dale, Anders M
Seibert, Tyler M
PRACTICAL Consortium
Source :
Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, vol 24, iss 2
Publication Year :
2021
Publisher :
eScholarship, University of California, 2021.

Abstract

BackgroundPolygenic hazard scores (PHS) can identify individuals with increased risk of prostate cancer. We estimated the benefit of additional SNPs on performance of a previously validated PHS (PHS46).Materials and method180 SNPs, shown to be previously associated with prostate cancer, were used to develop a PHS model in men with European ancestry. A machine-learning approach, LASSO-regularized Cox regression, was used to select SNPs and to estimate their coefficients in the training set (75,596 men). Performance of the resulting model was evaluated in the testing/validation set (6,411 men) with two metrics: (1) hazard ratios (HRs) and (2) positive predictive value (PPV) of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing. HRs were estimated between individuals with PHS in the top 5% to those in the middle 40% (HR95/50), top 20% to bottom 20% (HR80/20), and bottom 20% to middle 40% (HR20/50). PPV was calculated for the top 20% (PPV80) and top 5% (PPV95) of PHS as the fraction of individuals with elevated PSA that were diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancer on biopsy.Results166 SNPs had non-zero coefficients in the Cox model (PHS166). All HR metrics showed significant improvements for PHS166 compared to PHS46: HR95/50 increased from 3.72 to 5.09, HR80/20 increased from 6.12 to 9.45, and HR20/50 decreased from 0.41 to 0.34. By contrast, no significant differences were observed in PPV of PSA testing for clinically significant prostate cancer.ConclusionsIncorporating 120 additional SNPs (PHS166 vs PHS46) significantly improved HRs for prostate cancer, while PPV of PSA testing remained the same.

Details

Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, vol 24, iss 2
Accession number :
edsair.dedup.wf.001..4e963e330b57cf89dda5bd1bde2ea1f3