{"title":"Use of Polygenic Risk Score for Prediction of Heart Failure in Cancer Survivors","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.jaccao.2024.04.010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>The risk for heart failure (HF) is increased among cancer survivors, but predicting individual HF risk is difficult. Polygenic risk scores (PRS) for HF prediction summarize the combined effects of multiple genetic variants specific to the individual.</div></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>The aim of this study was to compare clinical HF prediction models with PRS in both cancer and noncancer populations.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Cancer and HF diagnoses were identified using International Classification of Diseases-10th Revision codes. HF risk was calculated using the ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities) HF score (ARIC-HF). The PRS for HF (PRS-HF) was calculated according to the Global Biobank Meta-analysis Initiative. The predictive performance of the ARIC-HF and PRS-HF was compared using the area under the curve (AUC) in both cancer and noncancer populations.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>After excluding 2,644 participants with HF prior to consent, 440,813 participants without cancer (mean age 57 years, 53% women) and 43,720 cancer survivors (mean age 60 years, 65% women) were identified at baseline. Both the ARIC-HF and PRS-HF were significant predictors of incident HF after adjustment for chronic kidney disease, overall health rating, and total cholesterol. The PRS-HF performed poorly in predicting HF among cancer (AUC: 0.552; 95% CI: 0.539-0.564) and noncancer (AUC: 0.561; 95% CI: 0.556-0.566) populations. However, the ARIC-HF predicted incident HF in the noncancer population (AUC: 0.804; 95% CI: 0.800-0.808) and provided acceptable performance among cancer survivors (AUC: 0.748; 95% CI: 0.737-0.758).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The prediction of HF on the basis of conventional risk factors using the ARIC-HF score is superior compared to the PRS, in cancer survivors, and especially among the noncancer population.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48499,"journal":{"name":"Jacc: Cardiooncology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":12.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jacc: Cardiooncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666087324002199","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
The risk for heart failure (HF) is increased among cancer survivors, but predicting individual HF risk is difficult. Polygenic risk scores (PRS) for HF prediction summarize the combined effects of multiple genetic variants specific to the individual.
Objectives
The aim of this study was to compare clinical HF prediction models with PRS in both cancer and noncancer populations.
Methods
Cancer and HF diagnoses were identified using International Classification of Diseases-10th Revision codes. HF risk was calculated using the ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities) HF score (ARIC-HF). The PRS for HF (PRS-HF) was calculated according to the Global Biobank Meta-analysis Initiative. The predictive performance of the ARIC-HF and PRS-HF was compared using the area under the curve (AUC) in both cancer and noncancer populations.
Results
After excluding 2,644 participants with HF prior to consent, 440,813 participants without cancer (mean age 57 years, 53% women) and 43,720 cancer survivors (mean age 60 years, 65% women) were identified at baseline. Both the ARIC-HF and PRS-HF were significant predictors of incident HF after adjustment for chronic kidney disease, overall health rating, and total cholesterol. The PRS-HF performed poorly in predicting HF among cancer (AUC: 0.552; 95% CI: 0.539-0.564) and noncancer (AUC: 0.561; 95% CI: 0.556-0.566) populations. However, the ARIC-HF predicted incident HF in the noncancer population (AUC: 0.804; 95% CI: 0.800-0.808) and provided acceptable performance among cancer survivors (AUC: 0.748; 95% CI: 0.737-0.758).
Conclusions
The prediction of HF on the basis of conventional risk factors using the ARIC-HF score is superior compared to the PRS, in cancer survivors, and especially among the noncancer population.
期刊介绍:
JACC: CardioOncology is a specialized journal that belongs to the esteemed Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC) family. Its purpose is to enhance cardiovascular care for cancer patients by publishing high-quality, innovative scientific research and sharing evidence-based knowledge.
The journal aims to revolutionize the field of cardio-oncology and actively involve and educate professionals in both cardiovascular and oncology fields. It covers a wide range of topics including pre-clinical, translational, and clinical research, as well as best practices in cardio-oncology. Key areas of focus include understanding disease mechanisms, utilizing in vitro and in vivo models, exploring novel and traditional therapeutics (across Phase I-IV trials), studying epidemiology, employing precision medicine, and investigating primary and secondary prevention.
Amyloidosis, cardiovascular risk factors, heart failure, and vascular disease are some examples of the disease states that are of particular interest to the journal. However, it welcomes research on other relevant conditions as well.