Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38630597›Full record

ArticleCancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology2024

Assessing the Value of Incorporating a Polygenic Risk Score with Nongenetic Factors for Predicting Breast Cancer Diagnosis in the UK Biobank.

Jennifer A Collister, Xiaonan Liu, Thomas J Littlejohns, Jack Cuzick, Lei Clifton, David J Hunter

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
6.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Jennifer A CollisterNuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8010-2503
Xiaonan LiuNuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2930-605X
Thomas J LittlejohnsNuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1177-6923
Jack CuzickWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7420-7512
Lei CliftonNuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-5595-8468
David J HunterNuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9006-5144
University of Oxford · GBMassachusetts Department of Public Health · USQueen Mary University of London · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 29186Cancer Research UK (CRUK) C16077/A29186
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrevious studies have demonstrated that incorporating a polygenic risk score (PRS) to existing risk prediction models for breast cancer improves model fit, but to determine its clinical utility the impact on risk categorization needs to be established. We add a PRS to two well-established models and quantify the difference in classification using the net reclassification improvement (NRI).

methodsWe analyzed data from 126,490 post-menopausal women of "White British" ancestry, aged 40 to 69 years at baseline from the UK Biobank prospective cohort. The breast cancer outcome was derived from linked registry data and hospital records. We combined a PRS for breast cancer with 10-year risk scores from the Tyrer-Cuzick and Gail models, and compared these to the risk scores from the models using phenotypic variables alone. We report metrics of discrimination and classification, and consider the importance of the risk threshold selected.

resultsThe Harrell's C statistic of the 10-year risk from the Tyrer-Cuzick and Gail models was 0.57 and 0.54, respectively, increasing to 0.67 when the PRS was included. Inclusion of the PRS gave a positive NRI for cases in both models [0.080 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.053-0.104) and 0.051 (95% CI, 0.030-0.073), respectively], with negligible impact on controls.

conclusionsThe addition of a PRS for breast cancer to the well-established Tyrer-Cuzick and Gail models provides a substantial improvement in the prediction accuracy and risk stratification. IMPACT: These findings could have important implications for the ongoing discussion about the value of PRS in risk prediction models and screening.

Indexed as

Biological Specimen BanksBreast NeoplasmsAdultAgedFemaleGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenetic Risk ScoreHumansMiddle AgedMultifactorial InheritanceProspective StudiesRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsUK BiobankUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID38630597
PMCPMC11145162
OpenAlexW4394875104

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.