Abstract
Abstract
Background
Polygenic scores (PGS) have been developed for cancer risk-estimation and show potential as tools to prompt earlier referral for high-risk individuals and aid risk-stratification within cancer screening programmes. This review explores the potential for using PGS to identify individuals at risk of the most common cancers seen in primary care.
Methods
Two electronic databases were searched up until November 2023 to identify quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies that reported on the acceptability and clinical impact of using PGS to identify individuals at highest risk of breast, prostate, colorectal and lung cancer in primary care. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used to assess the quality of included studies and a narrative synthesis was used to analyse data.
Results
A total of 190 papers were identified, 18 of which were eligible for inclusion. A cancer risk-assessment tool incorporating PGS was acceptable to the general practice population and their healthcare providers but major challenges to implementation were identified, including lack of evidence for PGS in non-European ancestry and a need for healthcare provider education in genomic medicine. A PGS cancer risk-assessment had relatively limited impact on psychosocial outcomes and health behaviours. However, for prostate cancer, potential applications for its use in primary care were shown.
Conclusions
Cancer risk assessment incorporating PGS in primary care is acceptable to patients and healthcare providers but there is a paucity of research exploring clinical impact. Few studies were identified, and more research is required before clinical implementation of PGS can be recommended.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference67 articles.
1. + Our Future Health (2022) Seven things you need to know about Our Future Health. 30 June 2022. Our Future Health. https://ourfuturehealth.org.uk/news/seven-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-uks-largest-ever-health-research-programme/ [Accessed: 14 July 2023].
2. Archer S, Babb de Villiers C, Scheibl F, Carver T, Hartley S, Lee A, Cunningham AP, Easton DF, McIntosh JG, Emery J, Tischkowitz M, Antoniou AC, Walter FM (2020) Evaluating clinician acceptability of the prototype CanRisk tool for predicting risk of breast and ovarian cancer: a multi-methods study. PLoS One 15(3):e0229999. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229999
3. Archer S, Donoso FS, Carver T, Yue A, Cunningham AP, Ficorella L, Tischkowitz M, Easton DF, Antoniou AC, Emery J, Usher-Smith J, Walter FM (2023) Exploring the barriers to and facilitators of implementing CanRisk in primary care: a qualitative thematic framework analysis. Br J Gen Pract. https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2022.0643
4. Ayoub A, Lapointe J, Nabi H, Pashayan N (2023) Risk-stratified breast cancer screening incorporating a polygenic risk score: a survey of uk general practitioners’ knowledge and attitudes. Genes 14(3):732. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes14030732
5. Benafif S, Ni Raghallaigh H, McGrowder E, Saunders EJ, Brook MN et al (2022) The BARCODE1 Pilot: a feasibility study of using germline single nucleotide polymorphisms to target prostate cancer screening. BJU Int 129(3):325–336. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15535
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献