Abstract:Background Several polygenic risk score (PRS) methods are available for measuring the cumulative effect of multiple risk-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). Their performance in predicting risk at the individual level has not been well studied. Methods We compared the performance of three PRS methods for prostate cancer risk assessment in a clinical trial cohort, including genetic risk score (GRS), pruning and thresholding (P + T), and linkage disequilibrium prediction (LDpred). Performance was evaluated for score deciles (broad-sense validity) and score values (narrow-sense validity). Results A training process was required to identify the best P + T model (397 SNPs) and LDpred model (3 011 362 SNPs). In contrast, GRS was directly calculated based on 110 established risk-associated SNPs. For broad-sense validity in the testing population, higher deciles were significantly associated with higher observed risk;P(trend)was 7.40 x 10(-11), 7.64 x 10(-13), and 7.51 x 10(-10)for GRS, P + T, and LDpred, respectively. For narrow-sense validity, the calibration slope (1 is best) was 1.03, 0.77, and 0.87, and mean bias score (0 is best) was 0.09, 0.21, and 0.10 for GRS, P + T, and LDpred, respectively. Conclusions The performance of GRS was better than P + T and LDpred. Fewer and well-established SNPs of GRS also make it more feasible and interpretable for genetic testing at the individual level.

Broad- and narrow-sense validity performance of three polygenic risk score methods for prostate cancer risk assessment