Polygenic risk score and its role in cancer susceptibility

Czech version

Authors: A. Mišove; E. Macháčková; K. Nováková; M. Svoboda
Authors‘ workplace: Centrum lékařské genetiky, MOÚ, Brno
Published in: Klin Onkol 2026; 39(Supplementum 1): 12-16
Category: Review
doi: https://doi.org/10.48095/ccko2026S12

Overview

Background: Polygenic risk score (PRS) has the ability to stratify inherited susceptibility to cancer and, as a complement to monogenic testing, can identify individuals at increased genetic risk even when no pathogenic variant is detected in high -⁠ or moderate-penetrance genes. It reflects the combined additive effects of a large number of low-penetrance variants across the genome, and represents a continuum of genetic susceptibility with an approximately normal distribution. Clinically relevant differences are typically observed in individuals in the highest and lowest percentiles of the PRS distribution, while relative risk gradients depend on the cancer type, the specific PRS model, and the reference population used. PRS is not a single test but rather a family of statistical models that differ in their design, predictive performance, and transferability across populations, underscoring the need for external validation and population-specific calibration of absolute risk. Broader implementation is thus still held back by differences between individual PRS models, limited transferability, and the lack of harmonized guidance on indication, reporting, and clinical decision-making. Consequently, clinical use in the European Union remains largely confined to pilot studies and local projects. Within these initiatives, PRS is most commonly applied in two main ways –⁠ either as a triage tool for intensified diagnostics or screening in higher-risk groups, or as a component of multifactorial absolute-risk models (e. g. BOADICEA/CanRisk) that integrate PRS with other risk factors such as pathogenic variants in moderate-penetrance genes (e. g. ATM or CHEK2), family history, or lifestyle factors. By refining absolute-risk estimates, PRS may shift individuals across clinical decision thresholds for more intensive surveillance and preventive strategies. Aim: This review summarizes the principles of PRS, the main sources of variability between models, and its potential applications in risk stratification and personalized cancer screening. It also addresses limitations in transferability, the need for calibration, and the currently limited evidence for improvements in hard clinical outcomes.

Keywords:

Cancer prevention – risk stratification – polygenic risk score – multifactorial inheritance – genetic predisposition to disease – early detection of cancer

Sources

1. Goldgar DE, Easton DF, Cannon-Albright LA et al. Systematic population-based assessment of cancer risk in first-degree relatives of cancer probands. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994; 86 (21): 1600–1608. doi: 10.1093/jnci/86.21.1600.

2. Hemminki K, Ji J, Brandt A et al. The Swedish family-cancer database 2009: prospects for histology-specific and immigrant studies. Int J Cancer 2010; 126 (10): 2259–2267. doi: 10.1002/ijc.24795.

3. Albright F, Teerlink C, Werner TL et al. Significant evidence for a heritable contribution to cancer predisposition: a review of cancer familiality by site. BMC Cancer 2012; 12 : 138. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-12-138.

4. Mucci LA, Hjelmborg JB, Harris JR et al. Familial risk and heritability of cancer among twins in nordic countries. JAMA 2016; 315 (1): 68–76. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.17703.

5. Garber JE, Offit K. Hereditary cancer predisposition syndromes. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23 (2): 276–292. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.10.042.

6. Kleiblová P, Novotný J, Cibula D et al. Doporučené postupy klinické péče o nosiče zárodečných mutací v genech BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, ATM a CHEK2 predisponujících ke vzniku dědičného karcinomu prsu, vaječníků, prostaty a pankreatu (4.2024). Klin Onkol 2024; 37 (4): 292–299. doi: 10.48095/ccko2024292.

7. Novotný J, Cibula D, Curtisová V et al. Doporučené postupy klinické péče o nosiče zárodečných mutací v genech MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2 a velkých delecí EPCAM predisponujících ke vzniku Lynchova syndromu (4.2024). Klin Onkol 2024; 37 (5): 384–389. doi: 10.48095/ccko2024384.

8. van Hout CV, Tachmazidou I, Backman JD et al. Exome sequencing and characterization of 49,960 individuals in the UK biobank. Nature 2020; 586 (7831): 749–756. doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2853-0.

9. Manolio TA, Collins FS, Cox NJ et al. Finding the missing heritability of complex diseases. Nature 2009; 461 (7265): 747–753. doi: 10.1038/nature08494.

10. Goldstein DB. Common genetic variation and human traits. N Engl J Med 2009; 360 (17): 1696–1698. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp0806284.

11. Visscher PM, Wray NR, Zhang Q et al. 10 years of GWAS discovery: biology, function, and translation. Am J Hum Genet 2017; 101 (1): 5–22. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2017.06.005.

12. Khera AV, Chaffin M, Aragam KG et al. Genome-wide polygenic scores for common diseases identify individuals with risk equivalent to monogenic mutations. Nat Genet 2018; 50 (9): 1219–1224. doi: 10.1038/s41588-018-0183-z.

13. Hovhannisyan M, Zemankova P, Nehasil P et al. Population-specific validation and comparison of the performance of 77 -⁠ and 313-variant polygenic risk scores for breast cancer risk prediction. Cancer 2024; 130 (17): 2978–2987. doi: 10.1002/cncr.35337.

14. Mavaddat N, Michailidou K, Dennis J et al. Polygenic risk scores for prediction of breast cancer and breast cancer subtypes. Am J Hum Genet 2019; 104 (1): 21–34. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2018.11.002.

15. Fernandez-Rozadilla C, Timofeeva M, Chen Z et al. Deciphering colorectal cancer genetics through multi-omic analysis of 100,204 cases and 154,587 controls of European and East Asian ancestries. Nat Genet 2023; 55 (1): 89–99. doi: 10.1038/s41588-022-01222-9.

16. Bogumil D, Conti DV, Sheng X et al. Replication and genetic risk score analysis for pancreatic cancer in a diverse multiethnic population. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2020; 29 (12): 2686–2692. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-20-0963.

17. Dareng EO, Tyrer JP, Barnes DR et al. Polygenic risk modeling for prediction of epithelial ovarian cancer risk. Eur J Hum Genet 2022; 30 (3): 349–362. doi: 10.1038/s41431-021-00987-7.

18. Conti DV, Darst BF, Moss LC et al. Trans-ancestry genome-wide association meta-analysis of prostate cancer identifies new susceptibility loci and informs genetic risk prediction. Nat Genet 2021; 53 (1): 65–75. doi: 10.1038/s41588-020-00748-0.

19. Chen F, Darst BF, Madduri RK et al. Validation of a multi-ancestry polygenic risk score and age-specific risks of prostate cancer: a meta-analysis within diverse populations. Elife 2022; 11: e78304. doi: 10.7554/eLife.78304.

20. Martin AR, Kanai M, Kamatani Y et al. Clinical use of current polygenic risk scores may exacerbate health disparities. Nat Genet 2019; 51 (4): 584–591. doi: 10.1038/s41588-019-0379-x.

21. Kachuri L, Chatterjee N, Hirbo J et al. Principles and methods for transferring polygenic risk scores across global populations. Nat Rev Genet 2024; 25 (1): 8–25. doi: 10.1038/s41576-023-00637-2.

22. Dudbridge F. Power and predictive accuracy of polygenic risk scores. PLoS Genet 2013; 9 (3): e1003348. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1003348.

23. Choi SW, Mak TS, O’Reilly PF. Tutorial: a guide to performing polygenic risk score analyses. Nat Protoc 2020; 15 (9): 2759–2772. doi: 10.1038/s41596-020-0353-1.

24. McHugh JK, Bancroft EK, Saunders E et al. Assessment of a polygenic risk score in screening for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2025; 392 (14): 1406–1417. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2407934.

25. Tamlander M, Jermy B, Seppälä TT et al. Genome-wide polygenic risk scores for colorectal cancer have implications for risk-based screening. Br J Cancer 2024; 130 (4): 651–659. doi: 10.1038/s41416-023-02536-z.

26. Hung RJ, Warkentin MT, Brhane Y et al. Assessing lung cancer absolute risk trajectory based on a polygenic risk model. Cancer Res 2021; 81 (6): 1607–1615. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-20-1237.

27. Ho PJ, Tan IB, Chong DQ et al. Polygenic risk scores for the prediction of common cancers in East Asians: a population-based prospective cohort study. Elife 2023; 12: e82608. doi: 10.7554/eLife.82608.

28. Petitjean C, Wilcox N, Ficorella L et al. Evaluating the performance of the breast and ovarian analysis of disease incidence algorithm model in predicting 10-year breast cancer risks in UK biobank. J Natl Cancer Inst 2025; 117 (5): 948–958. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djae335.

29. Yang X, Wu Y, Ficorella L et al. Validation of the BOADICEA model for epithelial tubo-ovarian cancer risk prediction in UK biobank. Br J Cancer 2024; 131 (9): 1473–1479. doi: 10.1038/s41416–024–02851-z.

30. Nyberg T, Brook MN, Ficorella L et al. Canrisk-prostate: a comprehensive, externally validated risk model for the prediction of future prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2023; 41 (5): 1092–1104. doi: 10.1200/JCO.22.01453.

31. Lakeman IM, Rodríguez-Girondo MD, Lee A et al. Clinical applicability of the polygenic risk score for breast cancer risk prediction in familial cases. J Med Genet 2023; 60 (4): 327–336. doi: 10.1136/jmg-2022-108502.

32. Hovhannisyan M, Kleiblová P, Nehasil P et al. Skóre polygenního rizika (PRS) a jeho potenciál pro stratifikaci rizika karcinomu prsu. Klin Onkol 2023; 36 (3): 198–205. doi: 10.48095/ccko2023198.

33. Kullo IJ. Clinical use of polygenic risk scores: current status, barriers and future directions. Nat Rev Genet 2026; 27 (3): 246–263. doi: 10.1038/s41576-025-00900-8.

34. Huntley C, Torr B, Sud A et al. Utility of polygenic risk scores in UK cancer screening: a modelling analysis. Lancet Oncol 2023; 24 (6): 658–668. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045 (23) 00156-0.

35. Fergus KB, Heise RS, Madlensky L et al. Integrating breast cancer polygenic risk scores at scale in the WISDOM study: a national randomized personalized screening trial. Genome Med 2025; 17 (1): 97. doi: 10.1186/s13073-025-01524-7.

36. Roux A, Cholerton R, Sicsic J et al. Study protocol comparing the ethical, psychological and socio-economic impact of personalised breast cancer screening to that of standard screening in the “my personal breast screening” (mypebs) randomised clinical trial. BMC Cancer 2022; 22 (1): 507. doi: 10.1186/s12885-022-09484-6.