How the Intended Use of Polygenic Risk Scores Guides the Design and Evaluation of Prediction Studies
- 156 Downloads
Purpose of Review
To explain how the intended use of polygenic risk scores (PRSs) in healthcare guides the design and evaluation of prediction studies.
The advances in gene discovery in common complex diseases have fueled the interest in the potential of PRSs to predict risks and improve the prevention and early detection of disease. As the predictive ability of a PRS differs between populations and settings, it is important that prediction studies are designed and evaluated with the intended use of the risk scores in mind, but this is rarely done.
The intended use indicates in whom and how the PRS will be used in healthcare and for what purpose. This intended use dictates what outcome needs to be predicted in which population using which predictors. It also tells which other variables or clinical risk models might be available to improve the prediction. The intended use also provides the necessary context to evaluate whether the predictive ability of the PRS or the risk model that includes PRS is high enough for the score to be potentially useful in healthcare. The intended use should be leading risk prediction research.
KeywordsClinical utility Intended use Clinical prediction model Polygenic risk Risk prediction Research methods
This work was supported by a consolidator grant from the European Research Council (Genomic Medicine).
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
- 1.• Khera AV, Chaffin M, Aragam KG, Haas ME, Roselli C, Choi SH, et al. Genome-wide polygenic scores for common diseases identify individuals with risk equivalent to monogenic mutations. Nat Genet. 2018;50:1219–24. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-018-0183-z This paper revived the interest in polygenic prediction as it concluded that PRSs can identify indiviuals at increased risk comparable to that of monogenic disorders. The methodology of the paper has been challenged in several commentaries, including [32, 33, and 34]. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Brautbar A, Pompeii LA, Dehghan A, Ngwa JS, Nambi V, Virani SS, et al. A genetic risk score based on direct associations with coronary heart disease improves coronary heart disease risk prediction in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC), but not in the Rotterdam and Framingham Offspring, studies. Atherosclerosis. 2012;223:421–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Haddow J, Palomaki G (2004) ACCE: a model process for evaluating data on emerging genetic tests. In: Khoury M, Little J, Burke W editors. Human genome epidemiology: a scientific foundation for using genetic information to improve health and prevent disease. 217–233.Google Scholar
- 15.Kuchenbaecker KB, McGuffog L, Barrowdale D, Lee A, Soucy P, Dennis J, et al. Evaluation of polygenic risk scores for breast and ovarian cancer risk prediction in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2017;109. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djw302.
- 19.Moons KGM, Royston P, Vergouwe Y, Grobbee DE, Altman DG. Prognosis and prognostic research: what, why, and how? BMJ. 2009;338:–b375.Google Scholar
- 24.Chan CHT, Munusamy P, Loke SY, Koh GL, Yang AZY, Law HY, et al. Evaluation of three polygenic risk score models for the prediction of breast cancer risk in Singapore Chinese. Oncotarget. 2018;9:12796–804.Google Scholar
- 29.Smith T, Gunter MJ, Tzoulaki I, Muller DC. Brief communication: the added value of genetic information in colorectal cancer risk prediction models: development and evaluation in the UK Biobank prospective cohort study. Br J Cancer. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-018-0282-8.
- 32.Janssens ACJW, Joyner MJ. Polygenic risk scores that predict common diseases using millions of single nucleotide polymorphisms: is more, better? Clin Chem. 2019;2018:296103.Google Scholar
- 33.Greenland P, Hassan S. Precision preventive medicine—ready for prime time? JAMA Intern Med. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.0142.
- 34.Curtis D (2019) Clinical relevance of genome-wide polygenic score may be less than claimed. Ann Hum Genet ahg.12302. https://doi.org/10.1111/ahg.12302.
- 38.Pitkänen N, Juonala M, Rönnemaa T, Sabin MA, Hutri-Kähönen N, Kähönen M, et al. Role of conventional childhood risk factors versus genetic risk in the development of type 2 diabetes and impaired fasting glucose in adulthood: the Cardiovascular Risk in Young Finns Study. Diabetes Care. 2016;39:1393–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 47.•• Cook NR. Quantifying the added value of new biomarkers: how and how not. Diagnostic Progn Res. 2018;2:14 This commentary provides an overview of methods currently used to evaluate new biomarkers, describes their strengths and limitations, and offers suggestions on their use. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 50.Martens FK, Kers JG, Janssens ACJW. External validation is only needed when prediction models are worth it (Letter commenting on: J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68:25–34). J Clin Epidemiol. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.01.022.
- 56.Gu F, Chen T-H, Pfeiffer RM, Fargnoli MC, Calista D, Ghiorzo P, et al. Combining common genetic variants and non-genetic risk factors to predict risk of cutaneous melanoma. Hum Mol Genet. 2018;27:4145–56.Google Scholar
- 57.•• Wynants L, Collins GS, Van Calster B. Key steps and common pitfalls in developing and validating risk models. BJOG. 2017;124:423–32 This paper presents an overview of ten steps from the conception of the study to the implementation of the risk model and discusses common pitfalls. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 59.•• Janssens ACJW, Ioannidis JPA, Bedrosian S, Boffetta P, Dolan SM, Dowling N, et al. Strengthening the reporting of Genetic RIsk Prediction Studies (GRIPS): explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:e1–e22 This paper provides recommendations to enhance the transparency, completeness, and accuracy of reporting genetic prediction studies. CrossRefGoogle Scholar