BMC Cancer (May 2024)

Prediction of esophageal cancer risk based on genetic variants and environmental risk factors in Chinese population

  • Haiyan Liu,
  • Keming Li,
  • Junfen Xia,
  • Jicun Zhu,
  • Yifan Cheng,
  • Xiaoyue Zhang,
  • Hua Ye,
  • Peng Wang

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-024-12370-y
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 24, no. 1
pp. 1 – 10

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background Results regarding whether it is essential to incorporate genetic variants into risk prediction models for esophageal cancer (EC) are inconsistent due to the different genetic backgrounds of the populations studied. We aimed to identify single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with EC among the Chinese population and to evaluate the performance of genetic and non-genetic factors in a risk model for developing EC. Methods A meta-analysis was performed to systematically identify potential SNPs, which were further verified by a case-control study. Three risk models were developed: a genetic model with weighted genetic risk score (wGRS) based on promising SNPs, a non-genetic model with environmental risk factors, and a combined model including both genetic and non-genetic factors. The discrimination ability of the models was compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and the net reclassification index (NRI). The Akaike information criterion (AIC) and Bayesian information criterion (BIC) were used to assess the goodness-of-fit of the models. Results Five promising SNPs were ultimately utilized to calculate the wGRS. Individuals in the highest quartile of the wGRS had a 4.93-fold (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.59 to 9.38) increased risk of EC compared with those in the lowest quartile. The genetic or non-genetic model identified EC patients with AUCs ranging from 0.618 to 0.650. The combined model had an AUC of 0.707 (95% CI: 0.669 to 0.743) and was the best-fitting model (AIC = 750.55, BIC = 759.34). The NRI improved when the wGRS was added to the risk model with non-genetic factors only (NRI = 0.082, P = 0.037). Conclusions Among the three risk models for EC, the combined model showed optimal predictive performance and can help to identify individuals at risk of EC for tailored preventive measures.

Keywords