Published in

Springer Nature [academic journals on nature.com], British Journal of Cancer, 12(114), p. e22-e22, 2016

DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2016.136

Springer Nature [academic journals on nature.com], British Journal of Cancer, 10(113), p. 1512-1518, 2015

DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2015.334

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Polygenic susceptibility to testicular cancer: implications for personalised health care

This paper is made freely available by the publisher.
This paper is made freely available by the publisher.

Full text: Download

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Orange circle
Postprint: archiving restricted
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

Abstract Background: The increasing incidence of testicular germ cell tumour (TGCT) combined with its strong heritable basis suggests that stratified screening for the early detection of TGCT may be clinically useful. We modelled the efficiency of such a personalised screening approach, based on genetic risk profiling in combination with other diagnostic tools. Methods: We compared the number of cases potentially detectable in the population under a number of screening models. The polygenic risk scoring (PRS) model was assumed to have a log-normal relative risk distribution across the 19 currently known TGCT susceptibility variants. The diagnostic performance of testicular biopsy and non-invasive semen analysis was also assessed, within a simulated combined screening programme. Results: The area under the curve for the TGCT PRS model was 0.72 with individuals in the top 1% of the PRS having a nine-fold increased TGCT risk compared with the population median. Results from population-screening simulations only achieved a maximal positive predictive value (PPV) of 60%, highlighting broader clinical factors that challenge such strategies, not least the rare nature of TGCT. In terms of future improvements, heritability estimates suggest that a significant number of additional genetic risk factors for TGCT remain to be discovered, identification of which would potentially yield improvement of the PPV to 80–90%. Conclusions: While personalised screening models may offer enhanced TGCT risk discrimination, presently the case for population-level testing is not compelling. However, future advances, such as more routine generation of whole genome data is likely to alter the landscape. More targeted screening programs may plausibly then offer clinical benefit, particularly given the significant survivorship issues associated with the successful treatment of TGCT.