Assessing clinical utility of genomic risk stratification for cancer prevention: a systematic review
Abstract
Background: Despite advances in genomics for cancer prevention, its clinical utility remains inadequately assessed. This study, conducted within the European Joint Action JANE2, synthesizes evidence on the clinical utility of genomic-based personalized preventive strategies.
Methods: We conducted a systematic review following Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating genomic-based risk stratification for primary and secondary cancer prevention. We searched PubMed, CENTRAL, and Scopus with no time restriction. Primary outcomes were behavioral changes, cancer incidence, and mortality. The protocol was registered on OSF: 10.17605/OSF.IO/53Z7G.
Results: We included 16 RCTs, primarily focusing on skin cancers (38%). In 31% of the studies, risk stratification was based on high-penetrance genetic variants, while 69% used polygenic risk scores (PRS) based on common low-penetrance variants. Overall, 45% of the outcomes assessed lifestyle or behavioral changes following polygenic risk communication, with improvements reported in only 32% of cases (e.g., sun exposure habits for melanoma risk). Cancer incidence was investigated in 40% of the outcomes, with a reduction observed in 38% of cases, primarily following the use of preventive medications, such as aspirin in patients with Lynch syndrome. Adherence to preventive strategies accounted for 15% of the outcomes, showing improvement in 53% of cases, particularly in prostate cancer screening participation and prophylactic surgery for ovarian cancer. No study evaluated proliferation biomarkers or mortality as outcomes.
Conclusions: Genomic testing shows promise to improve risk stratification and tailor cancer prevention, particularly for high-penetrance genes, already included in guidelines but not implemented in all EU Member states. Reductions in cancer incidence and improved preventive behaviors may support the clinical utility of these strategies.
Key messages: • Genomic risk stratification supports cancer prevention by enabling targeted screening and preventive interventions, particularly for high-risk individuals.
• Integrating genomic risk stratification into prevention programs requires strong evidence of clinical utility from high quality studies.
Related
- Assessing the impact of a sugar prevention programme on caries
- X-linked Tumor Suppressor Escape and Sex Dimorphism in Cancer: Implications for Risk Stratification and Prevention.
- Comment on "The utility of magnetic resonance imaging of the spinal cord in paediatric transverse myelitis: A systematic review
- From Monogenic Variants to Polygenic Risk Scores in Inherited Cardiomyopathies: Clinical Utility, Ancestry Gaps, and Future Implementation in Arab Populations
- Clinical utility of prenatal exome sequencing after normal chromosomal microarray in fetuses with structural anomalies
BibTeX
@article{sabatelli2026assessing,
title = {{Assessing clinical utility of genomic risk stratification for cancer prevention: a systematic review}},
author = {A Sabatelli and S Farina and E Giacobini and P Castro Sanchez and G Karaoli and E Papageorgiou and T Sarnowski and L Alemany Vilches and S Boccia},
journal = {The European Journal of Public Health},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.1093/eurpub/ckag169.916},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckag169.916},
note = {CC BY-NC 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Assessing clinical utility of genomic risk stratification for cancer prevention: a systematic review
AU - A Sabatelli
AU - S Farina
AU - E Giacobini
AU - P Castro Sanchez
AU - G Karaoli
AU - E Papageorgiou
AU - T Sarnowski
AU - L Alemany Vilches
AU - S Boccia
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/01
JO - The European Journal of Public Health
DO - 10.1093/eurpub/ckag169.916
UR - https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckag169.916
AB - Background: Despite advances in genomics for cancer prevention, its clinical utility remains inadequately assessed. This study, conducted within the European Joint Action JANE2, synthesizes evidence on the clinical utility of genomic-based personalized preventive strategies. Methods: We conducted a systematic review following Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating genomic-based risk stratification for primary and secondary cancer prevention. We searched PubMed, CENTRAL, and Scopus with no time restriction. Primary outcomes were behavioral changes, cancer incidence, and mortality. The protocol was registered on OSF: 10.17605/OSF.IO/53Z7G. Results: We included 16 RCTs, primarily focusing on skin cancers (38%). In 31% of the studies, risk stratification was based on high-penetrance genetic variants, while 69% used polygenic risk scores (PRS) based on common low-penetrance variants. Overall, 45% of the outcomes assessed lifestyle or behavioral changes following polygenic risk communication, with improvements reported in only 32% of cases (e.g., sun exposure habits for melanoma risk). Cancer incidence was investigated in 40% of the outcomes, with a reduction observed in 38% of cases, primarily following the use of preventive medications, such as aspirin in patients with Lynch syndrome. Adherence to preventive strategies accounted for 15% of the outcomes, showing improvement in 53% of cases, particularly in prostate cancer screening participation and prophylactic surgery for ovarian cancer. No study evaluated proliferation biomarkers or mortality as outcomes. Conclusions: Genomic testing shows promise to improve risk stratification and tailor cancer prevention, particularly for high-penetrance genes, already included in guidelines but not implemented in all EU Member states. Reductions in cancer incidence and improved preventive behaviors may support the clinical utility of these strategies. Key messages: • Genomic risk stratification supports cancer prevention by enabling targeted screening and preventive interventions, particularly for high-risk individuals. • Integrating genomic risk stratification into prevention programs requires strong evidence of clinical utility from high quality studies.
SN - 1101-1262
SN - 1464-360X
ER -