z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Clinical validity and utility of genetic risk scores in prostate cancer
Author(s) -
Brian T. Helfand,
James T. Kearns,
Carly Conran,
Jianfeng Xu
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
asian journal of andrology/asian journal of andrology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.701
H-Index - 74
eISSN - 1745-7262
pISSN - 1008-682X
DOI - 10.4103/1008-682x.182981
Subject(s) - risk assessment , medicine , single nucleotide polymorphism , prostate cancer , population , oncology , gynecology , cancer , environmental health , genetics , genotype , biology , computer science , computer security , gene
Current issues related to prostate cancer (PCa) clinical care (e.g., over-screening, over-diagnosis, and over-treatment of nonaggressive PCa) call for risk assessment tools that can be combined with family history (FH) to stratify disease risk among men in the general population. Since 2007, genome-wide association studies (GWASs) have identified more than 100 SNPs associated with PCa susceptibility. In this review, we discuss (1) the validity of these PCa risk-associated SNPs, individually and collectively; (2) the various methods used for measuring the cumulative effect of multiple SNPs, including genetic risk score (GRS); (3) the adequate number of SNPs needed for risk assessment; (4) reclassification of risk based on evolving numbers of SNPs used to calculate genetic risk, (5) risk assessment for men from various racial groups, and (6) the clinical utility of genetic risk assessment. In conclusion, data available to date support the clinical validity of PCa risk-associated SNPs and GRS in risk assessment among men with or without FH. PCa risk-associated SNPs are not intended for diagnostic use; rather, they should be used the same way as FH. Combining GRS and FH can significantly improve the performance of risk assessment. Improved risk assessment may have important clinical utility in targeted PCa testing. However, clinical trials are urgently needed to evaluate this clinical utility as well as the acceptance of GRS by patients and physicians.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here