Use of Polygenic Risk Score for Prediction of Heart Failure in Cancer Survivors
Authors' conclusion
The prediction of HF on the basis of conventional risk factors using the ARIC-HF score is superior compared to the PRS, in cancer survivors, and especially among the noncancer population.
Study context
- Population
- Cancer survivors and participants without cancer, without heart failure (HF) prior to consent2,644 with prior HF excluded
- Comparison
- ARIC-HF clinical score vs PRS for HF (PRS-HF) for HF prediction
- Outcome
- Predictive performance (AUC) for incident HF
Methodological detailsHF and cancer identified by ICD-10 codes
- HF and cancer identified by ICD-10 codes
Performance
As reported in the abstract
Incident HF, AUC
| Test or model | AUC, cancer survivors | AUC, noncancer |
|---|---|---|
| ARIC-HF | 0.748 (95% CI: 0.737-0.758) | 0.804 (95% CI: 0.800-0.808) |
| PRS-HF | 0.552 (95% CI: 0.539-0.564) | 0.561 (95% CI: 0.556-0.566) |
AUC, cancer survivors
ARIC-HF0.748 (95% CI: 0.737-0.758)
PRS-HF0.552 (95% CI: 0.539-0.564)
AUC, noncancer
ARIC-HF0.804 (95% CI: 0.800-0.808)
PRS-HF0.561 (95% CI: 0.556-0.566)
Further findings
Association with incident HF
- Both ARIC-HF and PRS-HF significant predictors of incident HF after adjustment for CKD, overall health rating and total cholesterol
Original publication
Use of Polygenic Risk Score for Prediction of Heart Failure in Cancer Survivors. JACC CardioOncol. Published 30 August 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →