Polygenic risk scores for breast cancer: Progress, challenges, and clinical integration

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q2 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY
Jerry S. Lanchbury , Holly J. Pederson
{"title":"Polygenic risk scores for breast cancer: Progress, challenges, and clinical integration","authors":"Jerry S. Lanchbury ,&nbsp;Holly J. Pederson","doi":"10.1016/j.maturitas.2025.108748","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In a previous commentary, “An apparent quandary: adoption of polygenics and gene panels for personalized breast cancer risk stratification,” we highlighted the exceptional progress that had been made uncovering the polygenic risk component underpinning breast cancer susceptibility and drew attention to the critical challenges inherent in translating these advancements into measurable improvements in clinical care. Among the barriers to adoption discussed were the inherent biases in polygenic risk scores (PRS) developed in populations of largely European descent, the unpreparedness of professional societies for adoption, and the lack of education of current healthcare professionals and the cadres of those emerging from training. In this update, we focus on the substantial research advances that have been made and the cultural and practical transitions that have begun to position the field for delivering personalized preventive breast cancer services to all women. It is our perception that the discussion has moved from questions of establishing scientific validity to a focus on the development and application of practical operational solutions to better stratify risk. Additional issues raised are concerns over misuse, the composition of the single nucleotide polymorphism (SNPs) panels used and adjustment for non-European populations. High-risk breast clinics will benefit dramatically from models that incorporate genome-wide susceptibility genetics. Improved risk estimation may aid in patients' decisions about preventive medication and in clinical decisions concerning the need for and frequency of MRI screening, and, in exceptional cases, may even help patients at hereditary risk with surgical decision-making.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51120,"journal":{"name":"Maturitas","volume":"202 ","pages":"Article 108748"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Maturitas","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378512225005560","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In a previous commentary, “An apparent quandary: adoption of polygenics and gene panels for personalized breast cancer risk stratification,” we highlighted the exceptional progress that had been made uncovering the polygenic risk component underpinning breast cancer susceptibility and drew attention to the critical challenges inherent in translating these advancements into measurable improvements in clinical care. Among the barriers to adoption discussed were the inherent biases in polygenic risk scores (PRS) developed in populations of largely European descent, the unpreparedness of professional societies for adoption, and the lack of education of current healthcare professionals and the cadres of those emerging from training. In this update, we focus on the substantial research advances that have been made and the cultural and practical transitions that have begun to position the field for delivering personalized preventive breast cancer services to all women. It is our perception that the discussion has moved from questions of establishing scientific validity to a focus on the development and application of practical operational solutions to better stratify risk. Additional issues raised are concerns over misuse, the composition of the single nucleotide polymorphism (SNPs) panels used and adjustment for non-European populations. High-risk breast clinics will benefit dramatically from models that incorporate genome-wide susceptibility genetics. Improved risk estimation may aid in patients' decisions about preventive medication and in clinical decisions concerning the need for and frequency of MRI screening, and, in exceptional cases, may even help patients at hereditary risk with surgical decision-making.
乳腺癌多基因风险评分:进展、挑战和临床整合。
在之前的评论中,“一个明显的困境:采用多基因和基因面板进行个性化乳腺癌风险分层”,我们强调了已经取得的非凡进展,揭示了支撑乳腺癌易感性的多基因风险成分,并注意到将这些进步转化为临床护理可衡量的改进所固有的关键挑战。所讨论的收养障碍包括多基因风险评分(PRS)在主要是欧洲血统的人群中形成的固有偏见,专业协会对收养的准备不足,以及当前医疗保健专业人员和刚从培训中出来的骨干缺乏教育。在本次更新中,我们将重点介绍已经取得的重大研究进展,以及已经开始为所有女性提供个性化预防乳腺癌服务的文化和实践转变。我们认为,讨论已从确立科学有效性的问题转向集中注意发展和应用实际的业务解决办法,以便更好地对风险进行分层。提出的其他问题是对滥用的担忧,使用的单核苷酸多态性(snp)面板的组成以及对非欧洲人群的调整。高风险乳腺诊所将从纳入全基因组易感性遗传学的模型中受益匪浅。改进的风险评估可能有助于患者对预防性药物的决策,以及对MRI筛查的需要和频率的临床决策,在特殊情况下,甚至可以帮助有遗传风险的患者做出手术决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Maturitas
Maturitas 医学-妇产科学
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
2.00%
发文量
142
审稿时长
40 days
期刊介绍: Maturitas is an international multidisciplinary peer reviewed scientific journal of midlife health and beyond publishing original research, reviews, consensus statements and guidelines, and mini-reviews. The journal provides a forum for all aspects of postreproductive health in both genders ranging from basic science to health and social care. Topic areas include:• Aging• Alternative and Complementary medicines• Arthritis and Bone Health• Cancer• Cardiovascular Health• Cognitive and Physical Functioning• Epidemiology, health and social care• Gynecology/ Reproductive Endocrinology• Nutrition/ Obesity Diabetes/ Metabolic Syndrome• Menopause, Ovarian Aging• Mental Health• Pharmacology• Sexuality• Quality of Life
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信