Skip to main content
  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

AACR logo

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CEBP Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Progress and Priorities
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Disparities Collection
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Informing Public Health Policy
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CEBP Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Progress and Priorities
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Disparities Collection
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Informing Public Health Policy
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

Letters to the Editor

Risk Analysis of Prostate Cancer in PRACTICAL Consortium—Letter

Forike K. Martens, Jannigje G. Kers and A. Cecile J.W. Janssens
Forike K. Martens
1Department of Clinical Genetics, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, Section Community Genetics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jannigje G. Kers
1Department of Clinical Genetics, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, Section Community Genetics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
A. Cecile J.W. Janssens
1Department of Clinical Genetics, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, Section Community Genetics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
2Department of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: cecile.janssens@emory.edu
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-15-0904 Published January 2016
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Amin Al Olama and colleagues investigated the predictive ability of a polygenic risk score and observed that the risk of men in the top 1% of the distribution was 30.6-fold compared with men in the bottom 1% and 4.2-fold compared with the median risk (1). The authors conclude that “genetic risk profiling using SNPs could be useful in defining men at high risk for the disease for targeted prevention and screening programs.” Yet, such conclusion warrants a formal assessment of calibration and discriminative ability.

First, assessment of calibration is essential because the reported risks were not based on empirical observations but calculated from a risk model that was built assuming multiplicative effects between the SNPs. The authors verified whether allelic effects within each SNP could be considered as multiplicative, but not whether multiplicativity between SNPs could be assumed. Multiplicative models are known to under- and overestimate risks at the extremes of the risk distribution, especially when they include a large number of SNPs (2, 3). Although the authors mentioned that “the predicted ORs for the top 1% and the bottom 1% of the population, based on a log-linear model, did not differ from that observed,” this needs to be evidenced by a formal calibration analysis of the entire risk distribution and of the extremes if these are of special interest.

Second, the discriminative ability of the model should be assessed by examining how well the predicted risks distinguish between men who did or did not develop prostate cancer, quantified by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), to compare its performance with other models. Using the SNP data reported in their Table 2 and applying a validated simulation algorithm (4), we estimated that the AUC of the polygenic risk score would be 0.64. If confirmed by their data, this AUC would be lower than other models, including the prediction model from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial, which AUC was 0.66 for any prostate cancer and 0.71 for clinical significant prostate cancer (5).

Finally, the predictive performance is generally highest in the population in which the prediction model is developed, because the coefficients of the model are fitted to the data. The researchers have enough data to split their sample in two and perform both the development and validation analyses in one study. Independent validation of both calibration and discrimination will likely lead to a more modest perspective of the predictive performance of the polygenic risk score.

See the Response, p. 223

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Grant Support

This work was supported by a consolidator grant from the European Research Council (GENOMICMEDICINE).

  • Received August 26, 2015.
  • Accepted August 27, 2015.
  • ©2016 American Association for Cancer Research.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Amin Al Olama A,
    2. Benlloch S,
    3. Antoniou AC,
    4. Giles GG,
    5. Severi G,
    6. Neal DE,
    7. et al.
    Risk analysis of prostate cancer in PRACTICAL, a multinational consortium, using 25 known prostate cancer susceptibility loci. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2015;24:1121–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Moonesinghe R,
    2. Khoury MJ,
    3. Liu T,
    4. Janssens AC
    . Discriminative accuracy of genomic profiling comparing multiplicative and additive risk models. Eur J Hum Genet 2011;19:180–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Song M,
    2. Kraft P,
    3. Joshi AD,
    4. Barrdahl M,
    5. Chatterjee N
    . Testing calibration of risk models at extremes of disease risk. Biostatistics 2015;16:143–54.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Kundu S,
    2. Mihaescu R,
    3. Meijer CM,
    4. Bakker R,
    5. Janssens AC
    . Estimating the predictive ability of genetic risk models in simulated data based on published results from genome-wide association studies. Front Genet 2014;5:179.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Louie KS,
    2. Seigneurin A,
    3. Cathcart P,
    4. Sasieni P
    . Do prostate cancer risk models improve the predictive accuracy of PSA screening? A meta-analysis. Ann Oncol 2015;26:848–64.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention: 25 (1)
January 2016
Volume 25, Issue 1
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)

Sign up for alerts

View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Risk Analysis of Prostate Cancer in PRACTICAL Consortium—Letter
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Risk Analysis of Prostate Cancer in PRACTICAL Consortium—Letter
Forike K. Martens, Jannigje G. Kers and A. Cecile J.W. Janssens
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev January 1 2016 (25) (1) 222; DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-15-0904

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Risk Analysis of Prostate Cancer in PRACTICAL Consortium—Letter
Forike K. Martens, Jannigje G. Kers and A. Cecile J.W. Janssens
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev January 1 2016 (25) (1) 222; DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-15-0904
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
    • Grant Support
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Advertisement

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Copy Number Variation and Ovarian Cancer Risk—Letter
  • Genome-wide Analysis of Common Copy Number Variation and Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Risk—Response
  • Shift Work, Chronotype, and Cancer Risk—Response
Show more Letters to the Editor
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Feedback
  • Privacy Policy
Facebook   Twitter   LinkedIn   YouTube   RSS

Articles

  • Online First
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Info for

  • Authors
  • Subscribers
  • Advertisers
  • Librarians

About Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Permissions
  • Submit a Manuscript
AACR logo

Copyright © 2021 by the American Association for Cancer Research.

Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
eISSN: 1538-7755
ISSN: 1055-9965

Advertisement