The Future is Now: Polygenic Risk Scores in Primary Care

An Introduction to the Next Wave of Genetic Medicine

Dr Neeraj Manikath , claude.ai

Abstract

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) represent a paradigm shift in how we conceptualize and utilize genetic information in clinical practice. Unlike monogenic conditions determined by single gene mutations, PRS quantify the cumulative effect of thousands of common genetic variants to predict disease susceptibility. With robust evidence emerging for coronary artery disease and breast cancer, these tools are transitioning from research curiosities to clinical realities. This review explores the fundamental principles of PRS, examines the current evidence base, discusses critical limitations including population-specific biases, and provides practical insights for primary care physicians preparing to integrate this technology into everyday practice.

Introduction

For decades, genetic medicine in primary care has largely meant recognizing red flags for rare monogenic disorders—familial hypercholesterolemia, Lynch syndrome, or BRCA mutations. These high-penetrance variants follow Mendelian inheritance patterns and confer substantial disease risk. However, they explain only a fraction of disease heritability. The majority of common diseases—coronary artery disease, type 2 diabetes, breast cancer—arise from complex interactions between hundreds or thousands of genetic variants, each contributing a modest effect.

Enter polygenic risk scores: computational tools that aggregate these "many small genetic nudges" into a single metric that stratifies individual risk. As genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have catalogued millions of genetic variants across diverse populations, PRS have evolved from theoretical constructs to clinically actionable tools. The future of preventive medicine is no longer on the horizon—it has arrived in our consultation rooms.

What is a Polygenic Risk Score? The Concept of "Many Small Genetic Nudges"

The Foundational Concept

A polygenic risk score integrates information from numerous genetic variants—typically single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs)—across the genome, each contributing incrementally to disease susceptibility. Unlike pathogenic mutations in genes like BRCA1 or LDLR that dramatically increase risk, individual SNPs in a PRS might increase disease odds by only 1.02 to 1.15-fold. However, when aggregated across thousands of variants, the cumulative effect can rival or exceed that of traditional clinical risk factors.

Pearl: Think of PRS as a genetic "credit score"—not a deterministic prediction, but a probabilistic assessment derived from multiple small data points that collectively paint a risk picture.

The Mathematical Framework

PRS are calculated using a weighted sum formula:

PRS = Σ (β × dosage of risk allele)

Where β represents the effect size of each variant (derived from GWAS), and the dosage reflects whether an individual carries 0, 1, or 2 copies of the risk allele. Modern PRS may incorporate anywhere from hundreds to millions of variants, with more comprehensive scores generally demonstrating superior predictive performance.

How PRS Differ from Traditional Risk Assessment

Traditional risk calculators (Framingham, QRISK, Gail model) rely on modifiable and non-modifiable clinical factors—age, sex, blood pressure, lipids, smoking status. PRS add an orthogonal dimension: constitutional genetic susceptibility present from birth. Importantly, PRS provide information independent of traditional factors, meaning they can reclassify individuals within existing risk categories.

Oyster: A patient with optimal cholesterol and blood pressure but a high PRS for coronary disease may still benefit from aggressive primary prevention—something conventional calculators would miss.

The Best Evidence: Coronary Artery Disease and Breast Cancer

Coronary Artery Disease: The Flagship Application

Coronary artery disease (CAD) represents the most mature application of PRS in clinical medicine. Large-scale meta-analyses of GWAS have identified over 300 genomic loci associated with CAD, enabling construction of robust PRS.

Key Evidence:

The Khera Study (2018): In a landmark Nature Genetics publication, Khera and colleagues demonstrated that approximately 8% of individuals of European ancestry carry a PRS conferring more than threefold increased CAD risk compared to the general population. Critically, this high-risk group had CAD incidence comparable to carriers of monogenic familial hypercholesterolemia mutations, yet most had normal cholesterol levels.
UK Biobank Validation: Subsequent studies in the UK Biobank cohort (n>400,000) confirmed that CAD PRS independently predicted incident myocardial infarction across all baseline clinical risk categories. Individuals in the top 5% of PRS distribution had hazard ratios of 2.5-3.0 for CAD events, even after adjusting for conventional risk factors.
Intervention Response: Emerging evidence suggests PRS may predict treatment response. Data from statin trials indicate that individuals with high CAD PRS derive greater absolute benefit from lipid-lowering therapy, supporting targeted intervention strategies.

Clinical Hack: In practice, a high CAD PRS might lower your threshold for initiating statins in intermediate-risk patients or justify earlier coronary calcium scoring for risk refinement.

Breast Cancer: Precision Screening on the Horizon

Breast cancer PRS have advanced rapidly, with potential to transform mammographic screening paradigms.

Key Evidence:

The Mavaddat Study (2019): Published in JNCI, this study of over 94,000 women demonstrated that PRS could stratify breast cancer risk across a fivefold range. Women in the highest PRS decile had 10-year absolute risks exceeding 8%, comparable to women with BRCA2 mutations.
Integration with Traditional Models: The BOADICEA model now incorporates PRS alongside family history and clinical factors, improving discrimination (C-statistic improvement from 0.62 to 0.68). This integration enables personalized screening recommendations.
The WISDOM Trial: This ongoing randomized trial in the United States is testing whether PRS-guided, risk-stratified screening (earlier initiation for high-risk, extended intervals for low-risk) achieves non-inferior cancer detection with fewer false positives compared to standard annual mammography.

Pearl: High PRS individuals might benefit from supplemental MRI screening or earlier initiation at age 35-40, while low PRS individuals might safely extend screening intervals to biennial or even less frequent.

Beyond the Leaders: Emerging Applications

Promising PRS are emerging for type 2 diabetes, atrial fibrillation, prostate cancer, and inflammatory bowel disease. While not yet ready for routine clinical deployment, these applications are advancing rapidly through the research pipeline.

How a PRS Complements Monogenic Testing

Distinct but Synergistic Approaches

Monogenic and polygenic risk assessment serve complementary roles in precision medicine. Understanding their interplay is essential for appropriate clinical application.

Monogenic Testing:

Targets rare, high-penetrance variants (frequency <1%, odds ratios >5)
Follows Mendelian inheritance
Actionable with established clinical guidelines (e.g., BRCA surveillance protocols)
Family-based cascade testing is standard of care

Polygenic Risk Scores:

Aggregate common, low-penetrance variants (frequency >5%, odds ratios 1.05-1.3)
Do not follow simple inheritance patterns
Provide continuous risk gradation across the population
Individual-level, not necessarily informative for family members

Clinical Integration: The Two-Tiered Model

Oyster: Consider PRS as the "fine-tuning" after monogenic risk has been addressed. First, rule out high-penetrance pathogenic variants. Then, use PRS to stratify polygenic background risk.

Example in Practice: A 45-year-old woman with maternal breast cancer at age 60. She tests negative for BRCA1/2 and other high-penetrance genes. Her PRS places her in the 85th percentile for breast cancer risk. Despite negative monogenic testing, her 10-year absolute risk is 6%, justifying enhanced surveillance.

When Both Are Present: Additive Effects

Individuals carrying both pathogenic monogenic variants and high PRS demonstrate the highest disease risk. In familial hypercholesterolemia, for example, patients with LDLR mutations and high CAD PRS develop cardiovascular events earlier and more frequently than those with mutations alone. This underscores the importance of considering both dimensions of genetic risk.

Clinical Hack: In patients with known pathogenic variants, document PRS status—it may influence the aggressiveness of preventive interventions or surveillance frequency.

The Limitations: Population-Specific Biases and the "Reclassification" of Risk

The Ancestry Problem: A Critical Equity Issue

The most significant limitation of current PRS is their derivation predominantly from populations of European ancestry. Approximately 78% of GWAS participants have been of European descent, creating substantial performance degradation when applied to other populations.

The Evidence:

Transferability Studies: When CAD PRS developed in European cohorts are applied to African ancestry populations, predictive accuracy drops by 30-50%. This reflects differences in linkage disequilibrium patterns, allele frequencies, and potentially distinct causal variants across populations.
The Risk of Exacerbating Disparities: Without diverse training datasets, PRS threaten to widen existing health inequities. Populations already underserved by healthcare systems may be further disadvantaged by genetic tools that perform poorly for them.

Pearl: Never apply a PRS without verifying its validation in the patient's ancestry group. Multi-ancestry GWAS are increasing, but we're not there yet.

Current Mitigation Strategies:

Trans-ethnic meta-analysis combining data across populations
Ancestry-specific PRS development
Statistical fine-mapping to identify causal variants transferable across populations
The PGS Catalog (www.pgscatalog.org) documents population-specific performance metrics

Risk Reclassification: Promise and Peril

PRS can reclassify patients from intermediate to high risk (upward reclassification) or from intermediate to low risk (downward reclassification). While this refinement is the goal, it introduces complexity.

Considerations:

Net Reclassification Index: Studies report 5-15% of patients reclassified by PRS, but clinical outcome improvements remain under investigation.
Threshold Ambiguity: Unlike monogenic variants with established clinical action thresholds, PRS cutoffs are somewhat arbitrary. Is the 90th percentile "high risk"? The 95th? Different guidelines may emerge.
Psychological Impact: Genetic risk information may cause anxiety or, conversely, fatalism. Patients with high PRS but no current disease may struggle with preventive recommendations. Those with low PRS may inappropriately neglect modifiable risk factors.

Oyster: Always contextualize PRS within overall risk. A low PRS doesn't grant immunity—lifestyle factors still matter immensely.

Technical Limitations

Non-Additive Effects: Current PRS assume additive genetic effects, ignoring gene-gene and gene-environment interactions.
Rare Variant Blind Spots: PRS miss rare variants outside GWAS detection range.
Temporal Stability vs. Dynamic Risk: PRS are fixed at birth, but actual disease risk changes with age, exposures, and comorbidities.

A Glimpse into the Future: Using PRS to Personalize Screening Intervals and Motivate Lifestyle Change

Personalized Screening: From One-Size-Fits-All to Risk-Stratified

The most immediate clinical application of PRS is refining screening recommendations.

Coronary Disease Screening:

High PRS individuals might justify coronary calcium scoring at age 40 rather than 50
Low PRS individuals might safely defer or omit routine calcium screening
Integration with traditional calculators (e.g., ASCVD score + PRS) provides optimal stratification

Breast Cancer Screening:

Ongoing trials (WISDOM, MyPeBS in Europe) are testing risk-based intervals
High PRS: annual screening starting age 35-40, consider supplemental MRI
Average PRS: standard guidelines (biennial, ages 50-74)
Low PRS: potentially extended intervals or later initiation

Colorectal Cancer:

PRS for colorectal cancer are emerging, potentially stratifying colonoscopy timing
High PRS might justify first colonoscopy at 40 vs. 45-50

Clinical Hack: Document PRS results in problem lists and preventive care flow sheets to ensure continuity across providers and time.

Behavioral Motivation: The "Geneticization" of Prevention

The Hypothesis: Genetic risk information may enhance motivation for lifestyle modification by making abstract risk concrete and personal.

Mixed Evidence:

The MI-GENES Study: Participants receiving genetic risk information for CAD showed modest improvements in statin adherence but minimal changes in diet or exercise.
Qualitative Research: Patients report genetic information feels "real" and "unchangeable," which can be motivating but also fatalistic.

Best Practices for Communication:

Frame PRS as Modifiable Susceptibility: "Your genes load the gun, but lifestyle pulls the trigger." High PRS means lifestyle interventions are even more important, not that outcomes are predetermined.
Quantify Absolute Risk Reduction: "With your genetic risk, stopping smoking reduces your CAD risk by 40% more than in the average person."
Integrate with Motivational Interviewing: Use PRS as one of multiple tools for behavior change, not as deterministic prophecy.

Pearl: Avoid saying "you're genetically destined." Instead, "you have elevated genetic susceptibility that makes prevention especially impactful."

Pharmacogenomics Integration: The Next Frontier

Future PRS applications may guide not just screening but treatment selection:

Statin Response: High CAD PRS individuals show greater absolute benefit from lipid lowering
Diabetes Prevention: High type 2 diabetes PRS predicts greater benefit from metformin or lifestyle intervention
Cancer Treatment: PRS may eventually predict chemotherapy toxicity or response

Infrastructure Requirements

Realizing PRS potential requires:

Electronic Health Record Integration: PRS should populate clinical decision support tools, not exist as standalone reports
Provider Education: Medical curricula must incorporate polygenic risk concepts
Genetic Counseling Access: Complex cases require specialist genetic counseling support
Health Equity Initiatives: Deliberate inclusion of diverse populations in research and clinical implementation

Practical Implementation Guide for Primary Care

When to Consider PRS Testing Today

Reasonable Current Applications:

Strong family history with negative monogenic panel
Intermediate risk by traditional calculators requiring risk refinement
Patient requesting genetic risk assessment with appropriate understanding

Premature Applications:

Routine screening in unselected populations
Populations without validated ancestry-specific PRS
Pediatric risk assessment (limited data on clinical utility)

How to Order and Interpret

Select Validated PRS: Use tests with published validation data in relevant ancestry groups (check PGS Catalog)
Pre-Test Counseling: Explain probabilistic nature, limitations, and implications
Interpret in Context: Always integrate with clinical risk factors; PRS alone is insufficient
Document and Monitor: Track in problem list; reassess as guidelines evolve

Addressing Patient Questions

"Does this mean I'll definitely get the disease?" No. PRS provide probabilities, not certainties. Even very high scores mean increased risk, not inevitability.

"Can I change my genetic risk?" The genetic variants themselves don't change, but you can substantially modify their expression through lifestyle, medications, and screening.

"Should my family be tested?" PRS are less informative for family members than monogenic variants, as they don't follow simple inheritance. Each person's score is unique.

Conclusion

Polygenic risk scores represent a fundamental evolution in how we apply genetic information to clinical care. No longer confined to rare Mendelian disorders, genetic risk assessment now encompasses the common diseases that constitute the bulk of primary care practice. The evidence for CAD and breast cancer applications is compelling, with practical implementation already underway in leading health systems.

However, with this power comes responsibility. Population-specific biases threaten to exacerbate health disparities if left unaddressed. The psychological and behavioral impacts of genetic risk information remain incompletely understood. Integration into clinical workflows requires thoughtful infrastructure and education.

For the primary care physician, the message is clear: the future of polygenic medicine is now. Understanding PRS principles, recognizing their limitations, and preparing for their integration into practice is no longer optional—it is an essential competency for 21st-century medicine. The genetic revolution in primary care has moved from "if" to "how."

Final Pearl: Start small. Learn PRS concepts. Follow the literature. Engage with early adopters. When PRS land in your inbox—and they will—you'll be ready to interpret them wisely and apply them equitably.

Key References

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.
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.
Torkamani A, Wineinger NE, Topol EJ. The personal and clinical utility of polygenic risk scores. Nat Rev Genet. 2018;19(9):581-590.
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.
Wald NJ, Old R. The illusion of polygenic disease risk prediction. Genet Med. 2019;21(8):1705-1707.
Lambert SA, Abraham G, Inouye M. Towards clinical utility of polygenic risk scores. Hum Mol Genet. 2019;28(R2):R133-R142.
Lewis CM, Vassos E. Polygenic risk scores: from research tools to clinical instruments. Genome Med. 2020;12(1):44.
Mars N, Koskela JT, Ripatti P, et al. Polygenic and clinical risk scores and their impact on age at onset and prediction of cardiometabolic diseases and common cancers. Nat Med. 2020;26(4):549-557.
Esserman LJ, WISDOM Study and Athena Investigators. The WISDOM Study: breaking the deadlock in the breast cancer screening debate. NPJ Breast Cancer. 2017;3:34.
Polygenic Risk Score Task Force of the International Common Disease Alliance. Responsible use of polygenic risk scores in the clinic: potential benefits, risks and gaps. Nat Med. 2021;27(11):1876-1884.

Author's Note: This review reflects the state of polygenic risk score science as of late 2024/early 2025. Given the rapid pace of advancement in this field, readers are encouraged to consult current guidelines and the PGS Catalog for the most recent developments and population-specific performance data.

Search This Blog

Internal medicine