| Title: | Polygenic Risk Scores Stratify Keratinocyte Cancer Risk among Solid Organ Transplant Recipients with Chronic Immunosuppression in a High Ultraviolet Radiation Environment |
| Journal: | Journal of Investigative Dermatology |
| Published: | 2 Jun 2021 |
| Pubmed: | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34089721/ |
| DOI: | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jid.2021.03.034 |
| URL: | http://www.jidonline.org/article/S0022202X21013117/pdf |
Publication 5580
WARNING: the interactive features of this website use CSS3, which your browser does not support. To use the full features of this website, please update your browser.
Abstract
Solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) have elevated risks for basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), especially in high UVR environments. We assessed whether polygenic risk scores can improve the prediction of BCC and SCC risks and multiplicity over and above the traditional risk factors in SOTRs in a high UV setting. We built polygenic risk scores for BCC (n = 594,881) and SCC (n = 581,431) using UK Biobank and 23andMe datasets, validated them in the Australian QSkin Sun and Health Study cohort (n > 6,300), and applied them in SOTRs in the skin tumor in allograft recipients cohort from Queensland, Australia, a high UV environment. About half of the SOTRs with a high genetic risk developed BCC (absolute risk = 45.45%, 95% confidence interval = 33.14-58.19%) and SCC (absolute risk = 44.12%, 95% confidence interval = 32.08-56.68%). For both cancers, SOTRs in the top quintile were at >3-fold increased risk relative to those in the bottom quintile. The respective polygenic risk scores improved risk predictions by 2% for BCC (area under the curve = 0.77 vs. 0.75, P = 0.0691) and SCC (area under the curve = 0.84 vs. 0.82, P = 0.0260), over and above the established risk factors, and 19.03% (for BCC) and 18.10% (for SCC) of the SOTRs were reclassified in a high/medium/low risk scenario. The polygenic risk scores also added predictive accuracy for tumor multiplicity (BCC R2 = 0.21 vs. 0.19, P = 3.2 × 10-3; SCC R2 = 0.30 vs. 0.27, P = 4.6 × 10-4).</p>
15 Authors
- Mathias Seviiri
- Matthew H Law
- Jue Sheng Ong
- Puya Gharahkhani
- Dale R Nyholt
- Peter Hopkins
- Daniel Chambers
- Scott Campbell
- Nicole M Isbel
- H Peter Soyer
- Catherine M Olsen
- Jonathan J Ellis
- David C Whiteman
- Adele C Green
- Stuart MacGregor
Enabling scientific discoveries that improve human health