Improving reporting standards for polygenic scores in risk prediction studies.

Polygenic risk scores (PRSs), which often aggregate results from genome-wide association studies, can bridge the gap between initial discovery efforts and clinical applications for the estimation of disease risk using genetics. However, there is notable heterogeneity in the application and reporting of these risk scores, which hinders the translation of PRSs into clinical care. Here, in a collaboration between the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) Complex Disease Working Group and the Polygenic Score (PGS) Catalog, we present the Polygenic Risk Score Reporting Standards (PRS-RS), in which we update the Genetic Risk Prediction Studies (GRIPS) Statement to reflect the present state of the field. Drawing on the input of experts in epidemiology, statistics, disease-specific applications, implementation and policy, this comprehensive reporting framework defines the minimal information that is needed to interpret and evaluate PRSs, especially with respect to downstream clinical applications. Items span detailed descriptions of study populations, statistical methods for the development and validation of PRSs and considerations for the potential limitations of these scores. In addition, we emphasize the need for data availability and transparency, and we encourage researchers to deposit and share PRSs through the PGS Catalog to facilitate reproducibility and comparative benchmarking. By providing these criteria in a structured format that builds on existing standards and ontologies, the use of this framework in publishing PRSs will facilitate translation into clinical care and progress towards defining best practice.

Germline Testing for Patients With BRCA1/2 Mutations on Somatic Tumor Testing.

BACKGROUND: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommends germline testing for pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutations identified by somatic tumor sequencing. The aim of this study was to explore whether patients at Stanford with somatic BRCA1/2 mutations were recommended germline testing in accordance with NCCN guidelines. METHODS: We retrospectively collected all Stanford patients with BRCA1/2 mutations found by tumor sequencing. Medical records were reviewed for each patient to identify those recommended germline testing. A multivariable logistic regression model was fit associating baseline characteristics with whether or not a recommendation was made. RESULTS: Of 164 participants, 51 (31.1%) had no recommendation for germline testing. Of the 97 available germline-testing results, 54 (55.7%) were positive for pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutations. After adjusting for possible confounders, patients with genitourinary cancer (odds ratio [OR] = 0.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.00 to 0.03; P = .003), lung cancer (OR = 0.04, 95% CI = 0.01 to 0.21; P < .001), sarcoma (OR = 0.02, 95% CI = 0.00 to 0.14; P < .001), skin cancer (OR = 0.01, 95% CI = 0.98 to 1.03; P = .002), or "other" diagnoses (OR = 0.01, 95% CI = 0.00 to 0.16; P < .001) were statistically significantly less likely to be recommended germline testing compared with patients with breast or gynecological cancers. CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights the importance of provider education outside of the oncologic specialties typically associated with BRCA-related cancers and continued exploration of referrals to genetics for germline testing on the basis of somatic findings.