We suggest the risk discrimination offered by PRS testing in cancer is not sufficient to make it a useful #screening#test. It may never be the case. This has been articulated by Nick Wald @Oxford_NDPH. nature.com/articles/s4143…
5/n[...]
For example, in prostate cancer, a detection rate of 16% will result in a false positive rate of 5%. 6/n
For cancers that are uncommon in the population, the absolute increase in cancer risk against baseline is small, even at the extreme upper tail of PRS.
7/n[...]
PRS can be used with non-genetic risk factors in risk models. These non-genetic risk factors may be correlated with the PRS (or components) and thus far, improvements in discrimination are modest: academic.oup.com/jnci/article-a…
8/n[...]
PRS may be integrated with existing cancer screening. Care needs to be taken to: i) protect current participation, ii) consider impact of withdrawing existing screening from people, iii) consider cost and complexity, iv) assess the efficacy of PRS+existing screening.
9/n[...]
Communicating risk in the absence of counselling may cause harm, and evidence for promoting risk-reducing behaviour is currently lacking: bmj.com/content/352/bm…
10/n
We should strive for #equitable access to #healthcare resources. The majority of cancer PRSs are derived from European populations. The predictive performance of these PRSs in non-European populations is poorer: nature.com/articles/s4146…
11/n
Implementing programmes without care may compromise the application of PRSs for niches, and indeed, of #genomic#medicine as a whole.
12/12
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh