ArticleGenome medicine2026
Optimizing colorectal cancer screening through polygenic risk score-based risk stratification: evidence from a population-based cohort and screening trial.
Article in Genome medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAccurate risk stratification of colorectal cancer (CRC) is essential for precise screening. Polygenic risk scores (PRS) hold promise for improving predictive efficacy in CRC. However, the real-world applicability of a risk-adapted CRC screening strategy based on the PRS remains underexplored. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the optimized PRS in a large prospective cohort in China and assess its utility for risk-adapted CRC screening.
methodsWe evaluated multiple PRS construction strategies using East Asian genome-wide association study data and well-established PRSs to select an optimal score, which was then assessed in 100,639 eligible participants from the China Kadoorie Biobank. The risk-adapted screening strategy assigns high-risk individuals to colonoscopy and low-risk individuals to fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), with FIT-positive cases referred for colonoscopy. We assessed the screening performance of the PRS, Asia–Pacific Colorectal Screening score, and their combination-based risk-adapted screening strategies against a standard FIT-based strategy among 2,821 participants in the TARGET-C CRC screening trial.
resultsThe combined PRS (i.e., PRS121) demonstrated the best predictive performance (C-index = 0.602) for CRC. Individuals in the highest PRS quintile (top 20%) exhibited a 2.69-fold increased CRC risk compared with those in the lowest quintile. The high PRS and unfavorable lifestyle group conferred the highest risk (hazard ratio = 3.32, 95% confidence interval: 1.80–6.11). In the TARGET-C trial, the PRS121 effectively distinguished patients with advanced neoplasia from controls (top 20%, odds ratio = 3.66). The PRS-based risk-adapted screening strategy improved AN detection compared with FIT-only screening, with higher sensitivity (69.4% vs. 54.1%, P = 7.6 × 10–4) and detection rate (16.7% vs. 13.1%, P = 0.024). Notably, PRS-based screening identified 21.1% of AN cases that were missed by FIT, and integrated risk stratification using PRS and APCS increased this proportion to 37.9%, demonstrating substantial improvement in detecting FIT-negative lesions.
conclusionsPRS enables effective risk stratification for colorectal cancer and improves detection of advanced neoplasia by identifying high-risk individuals missed by FIT, supporting its utility in precision risk-adapted screening.
trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR1800015506. Registered on 4 April 2018.
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.