Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38769249›Full record

ReviewJournal of community genetics2024

The acceptability and clinical impact of using polygenic scores for risk-estimation of common cancers in primary care: a systematic review.

Faye C Dannhauser, Lily C Taylor, Joanna S L Tung, Juliet A Usher-Smith

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of community genetics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Faye C Dannhauser, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-0219-1476
Lily C TaylorDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0832-9244
Joanna S L TungDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England.
Juliet A Usher-SmithDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England. jau20@medschl.cam.ac.uk.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8501-2531

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPolygenic scores (PGS) have been developed for cancer risk-estimation and show potential as tools to prompt earlier referral for high-risk individuals and aid risk-stratification within cancer screening programmes. This review explores the potential for using PGS to identify individuals at risk of the most common cancers seen in primary care.

methodsTwo electronic databases were searched up until November 2023 to identify quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies that reported on the acceptability and clinical impact of using PGS to identify individuals at highest risk of breast, prostate, colorectal and lung cancer in primary care. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used to assess the quality of included studies and a narrative synthesis was used to analyse data.

resultsA total of 190 papers were identified, 18 of which were eligible for inclusion. A cancer risk-assessment tool incorporating PGS was acceptable to the general practice population and their healthcare providers but major challenges to implementation were identified, including lack of evidence for PGS in non-European ancestry and a need for healthcare provider education in genomic medicine. A PGS cancer risk-assessment had relatively limited impact on psychosocial outcomes and health behaviours. However, for prostate cancer, potential applications for its use in primary care were shown.

conclusionsCancer risk assessment incorporating PGS in primary care is acceptable to patients and healthcare providers but there is a paucity of research exploring clinical impact. Few studies were identified, and more research is required before clinical implementation of PGS can be recommended.

Indexed as

CancerClinical utilityPolygenic scorePrimary careRisk stratificationSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID38769249
PMCPMC11217210

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.