Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros











Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Genome Med ; 16(1): 22, 2024 02 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38317189

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Although polygenic risk score (PRS) has emerged as a promising tool for predicting cancer risk from genome-wide association studies (GWAS), the individual-level accuracy of lung cancer PRS and the extent to which its impact on subsequent clinical applications remains largely unexplored. METHODS: Lung cancer PRSs and confidence/credible interval (CI) were constructed using two statistical approaches for each individual: (1) the weighted sum of 16 GWAS-derived significant SNP loci and the CI through the bootstrapping method (PRS-16-CV) and (2) LDpred2 and the CI through posteriors sampling (PRS-Bayes), among 17,166 lung cancer cases and 12,894 controls with European ancestry from the International Lung Cancer Consortium. Individuals were classified into different genetic risk subgroups based on the relationship between their own PRS mean/PRS CI and the population level threshold. RESULTS: Considerable variances in PRS point estimates at the individual level were observed for both methods, with an average standard deviation (s.d.) of 0.12 for PRS-16-CV and a much larger s.d. of 0.88 for PRS-Bayes. Using PRS-16-CV, only 25.0% of individuals with PRS point estimates in the lowest decile of PRS and 16.8% in the highest decile have their entire 95% CI fully contained in the lowest and highest decile, respectively, while PRS-Bayes was unable to find any eligible individuals. Only 19% of the individuals were concordantly identified as having high genetic risk (> 90th percentile) using the two PRS estimators. An increased relative risk of lung cancer comparing the highest PRS percentile to the lowest was observed when taking the CI into account (OR = 2.73, 95% CI: 2.12-3.50, P-value = 4.13 × 10-15) compared to using PRS-16-CV mean (OR = 2.23, 95% CI: 1.99-2.49, P-value = 5.70 × 10-46). Improved risk prediction performance with higher AUC was consistently observed in individuals identified by PRS-16-CV CI, and the best performance was achieved by incorporating age, gender, and detailed smoking pack-years (AUC: 0.73, 95% CI = 0.72-0.74). CONCLUSIONS: Lung cancer PRS estimates using different methods have modest correlations at the individual level, highlighting the importance of considering individual-level uncertainty when evaluating the practical utility of PRS.


Assuntos
Estratificação de Risco Genético , Neoplasias Pulmonares , Humanos , Neoplasias Pulmonares/genética , Teorema de Bayes , Estudo de Associação Genômica Ampla , Incerteza , Medição de Risco , Fatores de Risco , Predisposição Genética para Doença
2.
Nat Genet ; 40(3): 316-21, 2008 Mar.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-18264097

RESUMO

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer affecting males in developed countries. It shows consistent evidence of familial aggregation, but the causes of this aggregation are mostly unknown. To identify common alleles associated with prostate cancer risk, we conducted a genome-wide association study (GWAS) using blood DNA samples from 1,854 individuals with clinically detected prostate cancer diagnosed at

Assuntos
Predisposição Genética para Doença , Neoplasias da Próstata/genética , Locos de Características Quantitativas , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Algoritmos , Austrália , Estudos de Casos e Controles , Mapeamento Cromossômico , Genótipo , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Polimorfismo de Nucleotídeo Único , Reino Unido
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA