Abstract
Objectives To evaluate the benefit of combining polygenic risk scores (PRS) with the QCancer-10 (colorectal cancer) non-genetic risk prediction model to identify those at highest risk of colorectal cancer (CRC).
Design Population based cohort study. Six different PRS for CRC were developed (using LDpred2 PRS software, clumping and thresholding approaches, and genome-wide significant models). The top-performing genome-wide and GWAS-significant PRS were then combined with QCancer-10 and performance compared to QCancer-10 alone. Case-control (logistic regression) and time-to-event (Cox proportional hazards) analyses were used to evaluate risk model performance in men and women.
Setting and participants UK Biobank Study. A total of 434587 individuals with complete genetic and QCancer-10 predictor data were included in the QCancer-10+PRS modelling cohorts.
Main outcome measures Prediction of colorectal cancer diagnosis by genetic, non-genetic and combined risk models.
Findings PRS derived using the LDpred2 program performed best, with an odds-ratio per standard deviation of 1.58, and top age- and sex-adjusted C-statistic of 0.733 (95% confidence interval 0.710 to 0.753) in logistic regression models in the validation cohort. Integrated QCancer-10+PRS models out-performed QCancer-10 alone. In men, the integrated LDpred2 (QCancer-10+LDP) model produced a C-statistic of 0.730 (0.720 to 0.741) and explained variation of 28.1% (26.3% to 30.0%), compared with 0.693 (0.682 to 0.704) and 21.0% (18.9% to 23.1%) for QCancer-10 alone. Performance improvements in women were similar. In the top 20% of individuals at highest absolute risk, the sensitivity of QCancer-10+LDP models for predicting CRC diagnosis within 5 years was 47.6% in men and 42.5% in women, with respective 3.49-fold and 2.75-fold absolute increases in the top 5% of risk compared to average. Decision curve analysis showed that adding PRS to QCancer-10 improved net-benefit and interventions avoided, across most probability thresholds.
Conclusions Integrating PRS with QCancer-10 significantly improves risk prediction over QCancer-10 alone. Evaluation of risk stratified population screening using this approach is warranted.
What is already known on this topic
Risk stratification based on genetic or environmental risk factors could improve cancer screening outcomes
No previously published study has examined integrated models combining genome-wide PRS and non-genetic risk factors beyond age
QCancer-10 (colorectal cancer) is the top-performing non-genetic risk prediction model for CRC
What this study adds
Adding PRS to the QCancer-10 (colorectal cancer) risk prediction model improves performance and clinical benefit, with greatest gain from the LDpred2 genome-wide PRS, to a level that suggests utility in stratifying CRC screening and prevention
Competing Interest Statement
All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work other than that listed above; JHC is founder and shareholder of ClinRisk Ltd which supplies free open-source software for research purposes and also licenses other closed source software to implement risk prediction tools into NHS computer systems outside the submitted work and was its medical director until June 2019, JEE has served on clinical advisory boards for Lumendi, Boston Scientific, and Paion, and has served on the clinical advisory board and owns share options in Satisfai Health, and reports speaker fees from Falk; JHC is director of the QResearch database - a not-for-profit collaboration between University of Oxford and EMIS (commercial supplier of NHS computer systems) and is an adviser to the CMO in England on cancer screening, JEE serves on the ACPGBI / BSG guideline group for implementation FIT for the detection of CRC in patients with symptoms suspicious of CRC.
Funding Statement
SEB is supported by an MRC Clinical Research Training Fellowship (MR/P001106/1). JEE and SW receive funding from the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC). This work of the Houlston Laboratory (PL, RH) is supported by a grant from Cancer Research UK (CR-UK) (C1298/A25514). JHC received funding from the John Fell Oxford University Press Research Fund, grants from CR-UK grant number C5255/A18085, through the Cancer Research UK Oxford Centre, grants from the Oxford Wellcome Institutional Strategic Support Fund (204826/Z/16/Z) and other research councils, during the conduct of the study. MD is funded by CR-UK Programme Grant C348/A12076. IT is funded by CR-UK Programme Grant C6199/A27327. The research was supported by the Wellcome Trust Core Award Grant Number 203141/Z/16/Z with funding from the NIHR Oxford BRC. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. Funding bodies had no role in the design, analysis, writing or decision to submit.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The UK Biobank study has ethical approval from the North West Multi-centre Research Ethics Committee (16/NW/0274). This study was performed under UK Biobank application number 8508.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Manuscript updated provide more methodology in main paper; additional statistical comparisons of model performance added; Table 3 moved to supplementary data
Data Availability
UK Biobank data can be obtained through http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/. Genotype data are available in the European Genome-phenome Archive under accession numbers EGAS00001005412, EGAS00001005421, or from the Edinburgh University DataShare Repository (https://datashare.ed.ac.uk/). Finnish cohort samples can be requested from the THL Biobank https://thl.fi/en/web/thl-biobank. PRS SNP inclusion lists and model specifications will be deposited in the PGS catalogue repository (https://www.pgscatalog.org/). Risk scores for UKB participants will be returned to UK Biobank for use by approved researchers.
