Translational oncology · 2026
Clinical usefulness of polygenic risk scores in risk prediction models for lung cancer screening and lung nodule management.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Boumtje Véronique, Li Zhonglin, Gaudreault Nathalie, Saavedra Armero Victoria, Boudreau Dominique K, Plante Sophie, Biardel Sabrina, Eslami Aida, Martel Simon, Thériault Sébastien, Joubert Philippe, Bossé Yohan
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Lung cancer mortality decreases as a result of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening, but suffers from low uptake and high false-positive rates. The impact of integrating genetic risk using a polygenic risk score (PRS) to optimize lung cancer screening remains underexplored.
METHODS: We developed a genome-wide PRS and evaluated its performance in pre- and post-screening contexts. Screening eligibility was assessed using two UK Biobank (UKB) subsets: UKBPLCO (n = 8957; PLCOm2012norace risk ≥2%) and UKBScreeningCriteria (n = 74,024 meeting screening eligibility criteria). To evaluate nodule management, we used a cohort of 669 ever-smokers with PLCO ≥2% and Lung-RADS score ≥3, referred to as SYNERGIQCPLCO_LungRADS. Multivariable Cox models, time-dependent area under the curve (AUC), and decision curve analyses (DCA) evaluated association, discrimination, and clinical net benefit.
RESULTS: In UKBPLCO, the PRS was associated with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.18 per standard deviation. In UKBScreeningCriteria, PRS showed HR of 1.34. Adding PRS to the PLCOm2012 model improved discrimination (AUC: 0.707 vs 0.696; P = 6.85e-27[likelihood ratio test]) and correctly reclassified 9.2% of incident lung cancer cases. Six-year absolute risks stratified by PRS deciles indicate 3.1-fold increase in the top compared to the bottom decile. In SYNERGIQCPLCO_LungRADS, HRPRS was 1.22. In this context, DCA indicated a modest net benefit for decision thresholds between 10% and 30%.
CONCLUSION: PRS in lung cancer reveals context-dependent net benefit across studied populations. Although PRS adds limited value for determining screening eligibility, it may help reclassify borderline individuals and inform decisions regarding closer follow-up or invasive diagnostic procedures for high-risk screened groups.
METHODS: We developed a genome-wide PRS and evaluated its performance in pre- and post-screening contexts. Screening eligibility was assessed using two UK Biobank (UKB) subsets: UKBPLCO (n = 8957; PLCOm2012norace risk ≥2%) and UKBScreeningCriteria (n = 74,024 meeting screening eligibility criteria). To evaluate nodule management, we used a cohort of 669 ever-smokers with PLCO ≥2% and Lung-RADS score ≥3, referred to as SYNERGIQCPLCO_LungRADS. Multivariable Cox models, time-dependent area under the curve (AUC), and decision curve analyses (DCA) evaluated association, discrimination, and clinical net benefit.
RESULTS: In UKBPLCO, the PRS was associated with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.18 per standard deviation. In UKBScreeningCriteria, PRS showed HR of 1.34. Adding PRS to the PLCOm2012 model improved discrimination (AUC: 0.707 vs 0.696; P = 6.85e-27[likelihood ratio test]) and correctly reclassified 9.2% of incident lung cancer cases. Six-year absolute risks stratified by PRS deciles indicate 3.1-fold increase in the top compared to the bottom decile. In SYNERGIQCPLCO_LungRADS, HRPRS was 1.22. In this context, DCA indicated a modest net benefit for decision thresholds between 10% and 30%.
CONCLUSION: PRS in lung cancer reveals context-dependent net benefit across studied populations. Although PRS adds limited value for determining screening eligibility, it may help reclassify borderline individuals and inform decisions regarding closer follow-up or invasive diagnostic procedures for high-risk screened groups.