Abstract
Background The clinical value of polygenic risk scores has been questioned. We sought to clarify performance in population screening, individual risk prediction and population risk stratification by analysing 926 polygenic risk scores for 310 diseases from the Polygenic Score (PGS) Catalog.
Methods Polygenic risk scores in the PGS Catalog are reported using hazard ratios or odds ratios per standard deviation, or the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve sometimes expressed as the C-index. We used this information to produce estimates of performance in: (a) population screening — by calculating the detection rate (DR5) for a 5% false positive rate (FPR) and the population odds of becoming affected given a positive result (OAPR); (b) individual risk prediction — by calculating the individual odds of becoming affected for a person with a particular polygenic score; and (c) population risk stratification — by calculating the odds of becoming affected for groups of individuals in different portions of a polygenic risk score distribution. We use coronary artery disease and breast cancer as illustrative examples.
Findings Population screening performance: The median DR5 for all polygenic risk scores and all diseases studied was 11% [interquartile range 8 − 18%]. The median DR5 was 12% [9 − 19] for polygenic risk scores for CAD and 10% [9 − 12] for breast cancer, with population OAPRs of 1:8 and 1: 21 respectively, with background 10-year odds of 1:19 and 1:41 respectively, which are typical for these diseases at age 50. Individual risk prediction: The corresponding 10-year odds of becoming affected for individuals aged 50 with a polygenic risk score at the 2.5th, 25th, 75th and 97.5th centile were 1:54, 1:29, 1:15, and 1:8 for CAD and 1:91, 1:56, 1:34, and 1:21 for breast cancer. Population risk stratification: At age 50, stratifying into quintile groups of CAD risk yielded 10-year odds of 1: 41 and 1: 11 for the lowest and highest quintile groups respectively. The 10-year odds was 1: 7 for the upper 2.5% of the polygenic risk score distribution for CAD, a group that contributed 7% of cases. The corresponding estimates for breast cancer were 1: 72 and 1: 26 for lowest and highest quintiles; and 1:19 for the upper 2.5% of the distribution, which contributed 6% of cases.
Interpretation Polygenic risk scores perform poorly in population screening, individual risk prediction, and population risk stratification.
Funding British Heart Foundation; UK Research and Innovation; National Institute of Health and Care Research.
Competing Interest Statement
ADH is a member of the NIHR Biomedical Research Centres Polygenic Risk Score Collaborative and is a Co-Investigator on a grant from Pfizer to identify potential therapeutic targets for heart failure using human genomics.
Funding Statement
Supported by the UCL British Heart Foundation Accelerator (AA/18/6/34223), the UCL NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, and the UKRI/NIHR funded Multimorbidity Mechanism and Therapeutics Research Collaborative (MR/V033867/1). JG is a UCL British Heart Foundation PhD candidate (FS/17/70/33482). ADH and HH are NIHR Senior Investigators.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
N/A
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
-updated analysis of polygenic risk scores deposited in the PGS Catalog up to April 2022. -separate analyses of performance of polygenic risk scores in population screening, individual risk prediction and population risk stratification, with the incorporation of new figures.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript