Cancer Center Support Grant

Washington University, Saint Louis MO

Investigators

Linked publications & trials

Abstract

Project Summary This application is being submitted in response to the Notice of Special Interest (NOSI) identified as NOT-CA- 23-046. Polygenic risk scores (PRS) for cancer risk have the potential to clarify risk assessment and improve preventive care and risk management. However the development, evaluation, and implementation of PRS alone or combined with other risk models for cancer risk assessment are complex and require thorough investigation to ensure that they can be effectively used in clinical practice in diverse settings to improve patient outcomes. Specifically, research is needed to establish the validity of PRS in predicting the risk of lung and ovarian cancer, as well as to assess the clinical benefits and harms associated with their use. Furthermore, the evaluation of clinical utility (CU) is also necessary before the widespread implementation of PRS for lung and ovarian cancer risk assessment. The goal of this project is to conduct a systematic evidence review on the clinical utility of lung and ovarian cancer risk. These cancer sites were chosen for their high burden and mortality in the United States as well as their available PRS. To evaluate the state of the science on lung and ovarian cancer risk PRS the research team will systematically search, select, and review existing studies, evaluate them for potential bias, and synthesize their results. Specifically the research team will perform the following aims: (1) perform a systematic evidence review following best practices to describe the state of the science in terms of lung and ovarian cancer specific PRS development and evaluation, (2) systematically review the current evidence for the efficacy and effectiveness of lung and ovarian cancer PRS in the context of clinical utility, and (3) propose criteria and optimal study designs and methods for which PRS are candidates for evaluation of CU through clinical trials. We will achieve these aims by following a strict systematic evidence review process based on best practices and the research team's extensive experience performing systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The proposed systematic review will inform future trials and research direction for clinical translation and implementation.