Dataset Information

Improving reporting standards for polygenic scores in risk prediction studies.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Wand H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8609771 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Improving reporting standards for polygenic scores in risk prediction studies.

Wand Hannah H Lambert Samuel A SA Tamburro Cecelia C Iacocca Michael A MA O'Sullivan Jack W JW Sillari Catherine C Kullo Iftikhar J IJ Rowley Robb R Dron Jacqueline S JS Brockman Deanna D Venner Eric E McCarthy Mark I MI Antoniou Antonis C AC Easton Douglas F DF Hegele Robert A RA Khera Amit V AV Chatterjee Nilanjan N Kooperberg Charles C Edwards Karen K Vlessis Katherine K Kinnear Kim K Danesh John N JN Parkinson Helen H Ramos Erin M EM Roberts Megan C MC Ormond Kelly E KE Khoury Muin J MJ Janssens A Cecile J W ACJW Goddard Katrina A B KAB Kraft Peter P MacArthur Jaqueline A L JAL Inouye Michael M Wojcik Genevieve L GL

Nature 20210310 7849

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 ...[more]

PMID: 33692554

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveGenome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified over 30 susceptibility loci associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD). Using AD GWAS data from the International Genomics of Alzheimer's Project (IGAP), Polygenic Risk Score (PRS) was successfully applied to predict life time risk of AD development. A recently introduced Polygenic Hazard Score (PHS) is able to quantify individuals with age-specific genetic risk for AD. The aim of this study was to quantify the age-specific genetic risk for AD with PRS and compare the results generated by PRS with those from PHS.MethodsQuantification of individual differences in age-specific genetic risk for AD identified by the PRS, was performed with Cox Regression on 9903 (2626 cases and 7277 controls) individuals from the Genetic and Environmental Risk in Alzheimer's Disease consortium (GERAD). Polygenic Hazard Scores were generated for the same individuals. The age-specific genetic risk for AD identified by the PRS was compared with that generated by the PHS. This was repeated using varying SNPs P-value thresholds for disease association.ResultsPolygenic Risk Score significantly predicted the risk associated with age at AD onset when SNPs were preselected for association to AD at P ≤ 0.001. The strongest effect (B = 0.28, SE = 0.04, P = 2.5 × 10-12) was observed for PRS based upon genome-wide significant SNPs (P ≤ 5 × 10-8). The strength of association was weaker with less stringent SNP selection thresholds.InterpretationBoth PRS and PHS can be used to predict an age-specific risk for developing AD. The PHS approach uses SNP effect sizes derived with the Cox Proportional Hazard Regression model. When SNPs were selected based upon AD GWAS case/control P ≤ 10-3, we found no advantage of using SNP effects sizes calculated with the Cox Proportional Hazard Regression model in our study. When SNPs are selected for association with AD risk at P > 10-3, the age-specific risk prediction results are not significant for either PRS or PHS. However PHS could be more advantageous than PRS of age specific AD risk predictions when SNPs are prioritized for association with AD age at onset (i.e., powerful Cox Regression GWAS study).

Project description:BackgroundPolygenic risk scores (PRS), which offer information about genomic risk for common diseases, have been proposed for clinical implementation. The ways in which PRS information may influence a patient's health trajectory depend on how both the patient and their primary care provider (PCP) interpret and act on PRS information. We aimed to probe patient and PCP responses to PRS clinical reporting choices METHODS: Qualitative semi-structured interviews of both patients (N=25) and PCPs (N=21) exploring responses to mock PRS clinical reports of two different designs: binary and continuous representations of PRS.ResultsMany patients did not understand the numbers representing risk, with high numeracy patients being the exception. However, all the patients still understood a key takeaway that they should ask their PCP about actions to lower their disease risk. PCPs described a diverse range of heuristics they would use to interpret and act on PRS information. Three separate use cases for PRS emerged: to aid in gray-area clinical decision-making, to encourage patients to do what PCPs think patients should be doing anyway (such as exercising regularly), and to identify previously unrecognized high-risk patients. PCPs indicated that receiving "below average risk" information could be both beneficial and potentially harmful, depending on the use case. For "increased risk" patients, PCPs were favorable towards integrating PRS information into their practice, though some would only act in the presence of evidence-based guidelines. PCPs describe the report as more than a way to convey information, viewing it as something to structure the whole interaction with the patient. Both patients and PCPs preferred the continuous over the binary representation of PRS (23/25 and 17/21, respectively). We offer recommendations for the developers of PRS to consider for PRS clinical report design in the light of these patient and PCP viewpoints.ConclusionsPCPs saw PRS information as a natural extension of their current practice. The most pressing gap for PRS implementation is evidence for clinical utility. Careful clinical report design can help ensure that benefits are realized and harms are minimized.

Dataset Information

Improving reporting standards for polygenic scores in risk prediction studies.

Publications

Improving reporting standards for polygenic scores in risk prediction studies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets