Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Familial Cancer 4/2019

01-10-2019 | Colorectal Cancer | Original Article

Ability of known susceptibility SNPs to predict colorectal cancer risk for persons with and without a family history

Authors: Mark A. Jenkins, Aung K. Win, James G. Dowty, Robert J. MacInnis, Enes Makalic, Daniel F. Schmidt, Gillian S. Dite, Mirosl Kapuscinski, Mark Clendenning, Christophe Rosty, Ingrid M. Winship, Jon D. Emery, Sibel Saya, Finlay A. Macrae, Dennis J. Ahnen, David Duggan, Jane C. Figueiredo, Noralane M. Lindor, Robert W. Haile, John D. Potter, Michelle Cotterchio, Steven Gallinger, Polly A. Newcomb, Daniel D. Buchanan, Graham Casey, John L. Hopper

Published in: Familial Cancer | Issue 4/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Before SNP-based risk can be incorporated in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, the ability of these SNPs to estimate CRC risk for persons with and without a family history of CRC, and the screening implications need to be determined. We estimated the association with CRC of a 45 SNP-based risk using 1181 cases and 999 controls, and its correlation with CRC risk predicted from detailed family history. We estimated the predicted change in the distribution across predefined risk categories, and implications for recommended screening commencement age, from adding SNP-based risk to family history. The inter-quintile risk ratio for colorectal cancer risk of the SNP-based risk was 3.28 (95% CI 2.54–4.22). SNP-based and family history-based risks were not correlated (r = 0.02). For persons with no first-degree relatives with CRC, screening could commence 4 years earlier for women (5 years for men) in the highest quintile of SNP-based risk. For persons with two first-degree relatives with CRC, screening could commence 16 years earlier for men and women in the highest quintile, and 7 years earlier for the lowest quintile. This 45 SNP panel in conjunction with family history, can identify people who could benefit from earlier screening. Risk reclassification by 45 SNPs could inform targeted screening for CRC prevention, particularly in clinical genetics settings when mutations in high-risk genes cannot be identified. Yet to be determined is cost-effectiveness, resources requirements, community, patient and clinician acceptance, and feasibility with potentially ethical, legal and insurance implications.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Win AK, Ait Ouakrim D, Jenkins MA (2014) Risk profiling: familial colorectal cancer. Cancer Forum 38(1):15–25 Win AK, Ait Ouakrim D, Jenkins MA (2014) Risk profiling: familial colorectal cancer. Cancer Forum 38(1):15–25
10.
go back to reference Hopper JL, Carlin JB (1992) Familial aggregation of a disease consequent upon correlation between relatives in a risk factor measured on a continuous scale. Am J Epidemiol 136(9):1138–1147CrossRef Hopper JL, Carlin JB (1992) Familial aggregation of a disease consequent upon correlation between relatives in a risk factor measured on a continuous scale. Am J Epidemiol 136(9):1138–1147CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Howlader N, Noone A, Krapcho M, Garshell J, Miller D, Altekruse S et al (eds) (2014) SEER cancer statistics review, 1975-2011. Bethesda, National Cancer Institute Howlader N, Noone A, Krapcho M, Garshell J, Miller D, Altekruse S et al (eds) (2014) SEER cancer statistics review, 1975-2011. Bethesda, National Cancer Institute
15.
go back to reference StataCorp (2015) Stata statistical software: release 14. StataCorp LP, College Station StataCorp (2015) Stata statistical software: release 14. StataCorp LP, College Station
17.
go back to reference Dite GS, MacInnis RJ, Bickerstaffe A, Dowty JG, Allman R, Apicella C et al (2016) Breast cancer risk prediction using clinical models and 77 independent risk-associated SNPs for women aged under 50 years: Australian Breast Cancer Family Registry. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 25(2):359–365. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-15-0838 CrossRef Dite GS, MacInnis RJ, Bickerstaffe A, Dowty JG, Allman R, Apicella C et al (2016) Breast cancer risk prediction using clinical models and 77 independent risk-associated SNPs for women aged under 50 years: Australian Breast Cancer Family Registry. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 25(2):359–365. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1158/​1055-9965.​EPI-15-0838 CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Tenesa A, Dunlop MG (2009) New insights into the aetiology of colorectal cancer from genome-wide association studies. Nat Rev Genet 10(6):353–358CrossRef Tenesa A, Dunlop MG (2009) New insights into the aetiology of colorectal cancer from genome-wide association studies. Nat Rev Genet 10(6):353–358CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Antoniou AC, Pharoah PDP, McMullan G, Day NE, Ponder BAJ, Easton D (2001) Evidence for further breast cancer susceptibility genes in addition to BRCA1 and BRCA2 in a population-based study. Genet Epidemiol 21(1):1–18CrossRef Antoniou AC, Pharoah PDP, McMullan G, Day NE, Ponder BAJ, Easton D (2001) Evidence for further breast cancer susceptibility genes in addition to BRCA1 and BRCA2 in a population-based study. Genet Epidemiol 21(1):1–18CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Cannings C, Thompson E, Skolnick M (1978) Probability functions on complex pedigrees. Adv Appl Prob 10(1):26–61CrossRef Cannings C, Thompson E, Skolnick M (1978) Probability functions on complex pedigrees. Adv Appl Prob 10(1):26–61CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Curado MP, Edwards B, Shin HR, Storm H, Ferlay J, Heanue M et al (eds) (2007) Cancer incidence in five continents, vol IX. International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon Curado MP, Edwards B, Shin HR, Storm H, Ferlay J, Heanue M et al (eds) (2007) Cancer incidence in five continents, vol IX. International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon
26.
go back to reference Pharoah PDP, Antoniou A, Bobrow M, Zimmern RL, Easton DF, Ponder BAJ (2002) Polygenic susceptibility to breast cancer and implications for prevention. Nat Genet 31(1):33–36CrossRef Pharoah PDP, Antoniou A, Bobrow M, Zimmern RL, Easton DF, Ponder BAJ (2002) Polygenic susceptibility to breast cancer and implications for prevention. Nat Genet 31(1):33–36CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Wentzensen N, Wacholder S (2013) From differences in means between cases and controls to risk stratification: a business plan for biomarker development. Cancer Discov 3(2):148–157CrossRef Wentzensen N, Wacholder S (2013) From differences in means between cases and controls to risk stratification: a business plan for biomarker development. Cancer Discov 3(2):148–157CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Ability of known susceptibility SNPs to predict colorectal cancer risk for persons with and without a family history
Authors
Mark A. Jenkins
Aung K. Win
James G. Dowty
Robert J. MacInnis
Enes Makalic
Daniel F. Schmidt
Gillian S. Dite
Mirosl Kapuscinski
Mark Clendenning
Christophe Rosty
Ingrid M. Winship
Jon D. Emery
Sibel Saya
Finlay A. Macrae
Dennis J. Ahnen
David Duggan
Jane C. Figueiredo
Noralane M. Lindor
Robert W. Haile
John D. Potter
Michelle Cotterchio
Steven Gallinger
Polly A. Newcomb
Daniel D. Buchanan
Graham Casey
John L. Hopper
Publication date
01-10-2019
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Familial Cancer / Issue 4/2019
Print ISSN: 1389-9600
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7292
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-019-00136-6

Other articles of this Issue 4/2019

Familial Cancer 4/2019 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine