Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Oct;28(10):1580-1593.
doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-19-0059. Epub 2019 Jul 10.

Risk Prediction Models for Colorectal Cancer Incorporating Common Genetic Variants: A Systematic Review

Affiliations

Risk Prediction Models for Colorectal Cancer Incorporating Common Genetic Variants: A Systematic Review

Luke McGeoch et al. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2019 Oct.

Abstract

Colorectal cancer screening reduces colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Risk models based on phenotypic variables have relatively good discrimination in external validation and may improve efficiency of screening. Models incorporating genetic variables may perform better. In this review, we updated our previous review by searching Medline and EMBASE from the end date of that review (January 2014) to February 2019 to identify models incorporating at least one SNP and applicable to asymptomatic individuals in the general population. We identified 23 new models, giving a total of 29. Of those in which the SNP selection was on the basis of published genome-wide association studies, in external or split-sample validation the AUROC was 0.56 to 0.57 for models that included SNPs alone, 0.61 to 0.63 for SNPs in combination with other risk factors, and 0.56 to 0.70 when age was included. Calibration was only reported for four. The addition of SNPs to other risk factors increases discrimination by 0.01 to 0.06. Public health modeling studies suggest that, if determined by risk models, the range of starting ages for screening would be several years greater than using family history alone. Further validation and calibration studies are needed alongside modeling studies to assess the population-level impact of introducing genetic risk-based screening programs.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Relative discriminative performance of the risk scores grouped by those including only SNPs, those including SNPs plus family history and/or phenotypic risk factors without age and those including SNPs plus family history and/or phenotypic risk factors and age. Within each of these groups, the models are ordered according to sample size, with larger studies being those towards the bottom of each risk model category.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Stewart B, Kleihues P, editors. World Cancer Report. IARC Press; Lyon: 2003.
    1. Lin JS, Piper MA, Perdue LA, Rutter CM, Webber EM, O’Connor E, et al. Screening for Colorectal Cancer. An Updated Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2016 Jun 21;315(23):2576. - PubMed
    1. Hardcastle JD, Chamberlain JO, Robinson MH, Moss SM, Amar SS, Balfour TW, et al. Randomised controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for colorectal cancer. Lancet. 1996 Nov 30;348(9040):1472–7. - PubMed
    1. Holme Ø, Bretthauer M, Fretheim A, Odgaard-Jensen J, Hoff G. Flexible sigmoidoscopy versus faecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer screening in asymptomatic individuals. Cochrane database Syst Rev. 2013 Jan;9:CD009259 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kronborg O, Fenger C, Olsen J, Jørgensen OD, Søndergaard O. Randomised study of screening for colorectal cancer with faecal-occult-blood test. Lancet. 1996 Nov 30;348(9040):1467–71. - PubMed

Publication types

Substances