ArticleBMC medicine2021
Polygenic risk score across distinct colorectal cancer screening outcomes: from premalignant polyps to colorectal cancer.
Article in BMC medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic review: risk prediction models for metachronous advanced colorectal neoplasia after polypectomy.Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2024Pooled it
- Combining genome-wide polygenic scores with registry data for colorectal cancer risk-based screening.British journal of cancer · 2026Article
- TGF-β Pathway-Based Polygenic Risk Score Modifies the Association between Red Meat Intake and Colorectal Cancer Risk: Application of a Novel Pathway-Based PRS Method.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2026Article
- Red meat intake interacts with a TGF-β-pathway-based polygenic risk score to impact colorectal cancer risk: Application of a novel approach for polygenic risk score construction.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Stratified/risk-based screening for colorectal cancer in the UK: an overview.Colorectal cancer · 2025Review
- Diet Impacts on Gene Expression in Healthy Colon Tissue: Insights from the BarcUVa-Seq Study.Nutrients · 2024Article
- Effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening integrating non-genetic and genetic risk: a prospective study based on UK Biobank data.Cancer biology & medicine · 2024Article
- Clinical significance of cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2C expression in cancers: from small cell lung carcinoma to pan-cancers.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDifferent risk-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening strategies, such as the use of polygenic risk scores (PRS), have been evaluated to improve effectiveness of these programs. However, few studies have previously assessed its usefulness in a fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based screening study.
methodsA PRS of 133 single nucleotide polymorphisms was assessed for 3619 participants: population controls, screening controls, low-risk lesions (LRL), intermediate-risk (IRL), high-risk (HRL), CRC screening program cases, and clinically diagnosed CRC cases. The PRS was compared between the subset of cases (n = 648; IRL+HRL+CRC) and controls (n = 956; controls+LRL) recruited within a FIT-based screening program. Positive predictive values (PPV), negative predictive values (NPV), and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (aROC) were estimated using cross-validation.
resultsThe overall PRS range was 110-156. PRS values increased along the CRC tumorigenesis pathway (Mann-Kendall P value 0.007). Within the screening subset, the PRS ranged 110-151 and was associated with higher risk-lesions and CRC risk (OR
conclusionsPRS plays an important role along the CRC tumorigenesis pathway; however, in practice, its utility to stratify the general population or as a second test after a FIT positive result is still doubtful. Currently, PRS is not able to safely stratify the general population since the improvement on PPV values is scarce.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.